Impeachment ***** Says She Might Play More Games With the Constitution

[Mac-7]

Nancy “Impeachment *****” Pelosi and the Democratic Party still want to play juvenile games with the Constitution and the free and fair electoral process that we have in the United States. Never seen a lower act than I just witnessed with impeachment vote. I’m a former Democrat. Unbelievable how low Democrats have become.
Pelosi suggests she may wait to send impeachment articles to Senate: 'We'll make a decision ... as we go along'

 

[JusticeHammer]

Kind of stupid for Republicans to boast and brag about already deciding on an acquittal pr even finding of innocence before hearing the case. If this were a court case they would be kicked off the jury and might even see some jail time.

Kind of stupid to pass a partisan impeachment via an unfair process and expect the GOP senate to play along.

Whether the impeachment process was unfair or not is a subjective, biased and partisan opinion. Only the Supreme Court could make the decision and House Republicans have made no effort to challenge the House vote for impeachment.

Typical dimwitt tactics, block Republicans and then claim they didn't do anything. You like all the retarded Dems on this board are stupid.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Pelosi should reconvene the House Judicial Committee and subpoena the fact witnesses with a full vote of the House of Representatives, Let Supreme Court decide if the witnesses must testify or, not.

I agree. Just so we get an answer to the question. I think she’ll lose with this court but at least the next committee hearing will know their subpoena is meaningless

So you are for pissoli playing games with a sham impeachment based on lies? Typical retarded dimwit.

 

[teddyearp]

This is such B.S. Yes, the President mentioned Biden's name during that phone call. And that is all they have. The rest is believed, taken to mean, etc., etc. You know, they might have been able to save face if they had or will ALSO look into what Biden actually did. But no, as we see in Epstein, if your name is not Trump, you can get away with murder.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Long known as a brilliant tactician, Mitch McConnell fucked up royally by plainly stating that the he would not run the trial in the Senate in a impartial manner.

Impeached. Forever. Senate trial or not. Tough shit.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Long known as a brilliant tactician, Mitch McConnell fucked up royally by plainly stating that the he would not run the trial in the Senate in a impartial manner.

Impeached. Forever. Senate trial or not. Tough shit.

Impeached on nothing but lib scum lies and hearsay. You guys are idiots, tough shit.

 

[sparky]

“Impeachment *****”

Bullshit. I’m calling bullshit on your whole premise

**** you

ignorant **********.

ignorant *****

This ^^^^ is how they OWN partisans

~S~

 

[Nostra]

 

[kyzr]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

What part of "McConnell runs the senate" don't you understand?
If Nancy doesn't send the articles over the next congress can simply repeal them.....like they never even happened.

Would be nice to provide a link that a new congress can repeal.

This link is to an opinion, but the answer seems reasonable. It seems even more likely if Nancy doesn't submit the articles to the Senate.
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

An opinion? I want to see it written in the constitution. Is it there?

I have lot's of opinion's but that's all they are "my thoughts".

The Constitution does not address how or when the Articles get transmitted between the House and the Senate. So anything goes.
If Nancy takes longer than a week or two, the Senate can pass a rule to reject them and then Nancy could appeal to the USSC for an interpretation as to why she didn't send them sooner.

 

[rightwinger]

Nancy “Impeachment *****” Pelosi and the Democratic Party still want to play juvenile games with the Constitution and the free and fair electoral process that we have in the United States. Never seen a lower act than I just witnessed with impeachment vote. I’m a former Democrat. Unbelievable how low Democrats have become.
Pelosi suggests she may wait to send impeachment articles to Senate: 'We'll make a decision ... as we go along'

What a Sissy Mary

Impeachment has always been in the Constitution
It is how we remove tyrants

 

[candycorn]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

It does highlight the need to update the Constitution and add voice where it is silent. The loophole that someone squeaks through today is the same one someone else drives a truck through tomorrow. The Senate refusal to hold confirmation hearings is another example.

it all sucks

No, it highlights the need for certain people to actually read, understand and follow it, namely the commie Dems.

Ok... recite the specific time the Constitution dictates

 

[hadit]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

1. Quote the relevant section of the Constitution that requires "impartial jurors".
2. We've already heard from fact witnesses, except from one very central figure. I'll let you guess who it is, but here's a hint: His name reminds many of the word shiftless.

Geez, you'd think the House hasn't been doing anything at all and everyone wants the Senate to do their dirty work for them.

 

[hadit]

Nancy “Impeachment *****” Pelosi and the Democratic Party still want to play juvenile games with the Constitution and the free and fair electoral process that we have in the United States. Never seen a lower act than I just witnessed with impeachment vote. I’m a former Democrat. Unbelievable how low Democrats have become.
Pelosi suggests she may wait to send impeachment articles to Senate: 'We'll make a decision ... as we go along'

What a Sissy Mary

Impeachment has always been in the Constitution
It is how we remove tyrants

Thank goodness we don't have one of those. That would be bad.

 

[hadit]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

It does highlight the need to update the Constitution and add voice where it is silent. The loophole that someone squeaks through today is the same one someone else drives a truck through tomorrow. The Senate refusal to hold confirmation hearings is another example.

it all sucks

No, it highlights the need for certain people to actually read, understand and follow it, namely the commie Dems.

Ok... recite the specific time the Constitution dictates

Oh, it doesn't specify that at all, just like it doesn't specify that the Senate majority leader has to grant the minority leader's demands the time of day, and it doesn't specify that the Senate has to compose the trial to the House Speaker's specifications because she's trying to guarantee the outcome she wants.

 

[candycorn]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

It does highlight the need to update the Constitution and add voice where it is silent. The loophole that someone squeaks through today is the same one someone else drives a truck through tomorrow. The Senate refusal to hold confirmation hearings is another example.

it all sucks

Yes. McConnell, of all people, is upset at the “breaking of precedent” that he perceived took place in the house.

Absolute lack of self awareness.

He is absolutely correct. Commie demopukes are so stupid.

 

[candycorn]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

It does highlight the need to update the Constitution and add voice where it is silent. The loophole that someone squeaks through today is the same one someone else drives a truck through tomorrow. The Senate refusal to hold confirmation hearings is another example.

it all sucks

No, it highlights the need for certain people to actually read, understand and follow it, namely the commie Dems.

Ok... recite the specific time the Constitution dictates

Oh, it doesn't specify that at all, just like it doesn't specify that the Senate majority leader has to grant the minority leader's demands the time of day, and it doesn't specify that the Senate has to compose the trial to the House Speaker's specifications because she's trying to guarantee the outcome she wants.

It also doesn’t require a majority to pass a bill.
It’s crazy we don’t codify the process

 

[hadit]

Awww. You’re upset because she’s got to put a check on the GOP led Senate because it’s leader and a bunch of his pals have already told us that they will not be impartial jurors, which the constitution requires.

The American people favor a fair trial in the Senate and want to hear from fact witnesses. It likely won’t happen that way, but an effort must be made nonetheless.

It does highlight the need to update the Constitution and add voice where it is silent. The loophole that someone squeaks through today is the same one someone else drives a truck through tomorrow. The Senate refusal to hold confirmation hearings is another example.

it all sucks

No, it highlights the need for certain people to actually read, understand and follow it, namely the commie Dems.

Ok... recite the specific time the Constitution dictates

Oh, it doesn't specify that at all, just like it doesn't specify that the Senate majority leader has to grant the minority leader's demands the time of day, and it doesn't specify that the Senate has to compose the trial to the House Speaker's specifications because she's trying to guarantee the outcome she wants.

It also doesn’t require a majority to pass a bill.
It’s crazy we don’t codify the process

But at least it requires a 2/3 vote to remove a president.

 

[candycorn]

It does highlight the need to update the Constitution and add voice where it is silent. The loophole that someone squeaks through today is the same one someone else drives a truck through tomorrow. The Senate refusal to hold confirmation hearings is another example.

it all sucks

No, it highlights the need for certain people to actually read, understand and follow it, namely the commie Dems.

Ok... recite the specific time the Constitution dictates

Oh, it doesn't specify that at all, just like it doesn't specify that the Senate majority leader has to grant the minority leader's demands the time of day, and it doesn't specify that the Senate has to compose the trial to the House Speaker's specifications because she's trying to guarantee the outcome she wants.

It also doesn’t require a majority to pass a bill.
It’s crazy we don’t codify the process

But at least it requires a 2/3 vote to remove a president.

It highlights how silly that is in the document but daily business isnt

 

[hadit]

No, it highlights the need for certain people to actually read, understand and follow it, namely the commie Dems.

Ok... recite the specific time the Constitution dictates

Oh, it doesn't specify that at all, just like it doesn't specify that the Senate majority leader has to grant the minority leader's demands the time of day, and it doesn't specify that the Senate has to compose the trial to the House Speaker's specifications because she's trying to guarantee the outcome she wants.

It also doesn’t require a majority to pass a bill.
It’s crazy we don’t codify the process

But at least it requires a 2/3 vote to remove a president.

It highlights how silly that is in the document but daily business isnt

I think it was purposely written without all the tedious detail modern legalism seems to require to leave room for flexibility, and because the writers assumed that common sense wouldn't be a rare commodity among the readers.

 

[cnm]

Let her wait. When she gets around to it, Mitch can just say, "No thanks, that was last year's business. We have real business to attend to." and then just do a Harry Reid and put it in the trash can.

The interval might give time for the court process to make available witnesses whose appearance before committees Individual1 had proscribed. That would be interesting.