What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nadler Believed Pelosi's / Schiff's Impeachment Attempt Of Trump Was 'Un-Constitutional'

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
82,798
Reaction score
49,984
Points
2,645
It was....and CRIMINAL!

A new book claims Nadler opposed the Impeachment of Trump by Pelosi and Schiff based on the rules by which the two ordered the Impeachment to be conducted.

By their rules the Judiciaty Committee, which Nadler chaired, could not cross-examine witnesses. Nadler believed this to be Un-Constitutional and that Republicans and critics would use that against Democrats.

Nadler, of course, was right, but there was much more. Just about everything about the Impeachment was either Un-Constitutional, Criminal, or both.

Pelosi promised the country she would not allow the Impeachment to go forward unless the Democrats had 2 things:
1. Bipartisanship
2. 'UNDENIABLE' Evidence


Pelosi allowed the Impeachment to go forward despite having neither.

1. Bipartisanship:
Not 1 Republican sided with the Democrats in supporting Impeachment

otNo1N
2. 'Undeniable' Evidence:
During the Impeachment Democrats proved they had no legitimate crime, no evidence, and no witnesses.

At one point Pelosi , knowing this, argued publicly that Impeachments did not need to have / be based on crimes.

Pelosi and Schiff argued that Trump was such a 'threat' to the country (despite not having a crime, Evidence, or witnesses) and that he needed to be removed from office Immediately; however, after rendering a verdict to Impeach Trump in the House, Pelosi withheld Articles of Impeachment from the Senate for WEEKS.

The reason she did so was an abuse of power in an attempt to force the Senate to adopt Pelosi's House rules for Impeachment, the rules Nadler believed to be Un-Constitutional.

Pelosi knew the only way Trump could be Impeached was based on her Un-Constitutional rules because they did not have a crime, evidence, or witnesses. Forcing the Senate to adopt her rules was a higher importance than her proven bogus claim that Trump was so dangerous he needed to be removed from office immediately.

Her gambit failed; however, in the Senate, Schiff took over.

From falsely claiming to have a non-existent whistleblower to illegally authoring / creating and submitting false (a false transcript of a phone call) evidence, Schiff was caught / exposed for criminally / treadonously ma ufacturing evidence in an attempt to overthrow the US govt by illegally trying to remove a sitti g President from office.

In this new book we now see even Nadler opposed Pelosi's and Schiff's treasonous Impeachment, believing it to be Un-Constitutional.


 

Clipper

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
8,981
Reaction score
5,135
Points
940
They should have used the 25th against 45 because he's a deranged psychopath as unfit for office as Manson was.
 

White 6

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
28,948
Reaction score
16,812
Points
1,290
It was....and CRIMINAL!

A new book claims Nadler opposed the Impeachment of Trump by Pelosi and Schiff based on the rules by which the two ordered the Impeachment to be conducted.

By their rules the Judiciaty Committee, which Nadler chaired, could not cross-examine witnesses. Nadler believed this to be Un-Constitutional and that Republicans and critics would use that against Democrats.

Nadler, of course, was right, but there was much more. Just about everything about the Impeachment was either Un-Constitutional, Criminal, or both.

Pelosi promised the country she would not allow the Impeachment to go forward unless the Democrats had 2 things:
1. Bipartisanship
2. 'UNDENIABLE' Evidence


Pelosi allowed the Impeachment to go forward despite having neither.

1. Bipartisanship:
Not 1 Republican sided with the Democrats in supporting Impeachment

otNo1N
2. 'Undeniable' Evidence:
During the Impeachment Democrats proved they had no legitimate crime, no evidence, and no witnesses.

At one point Pelosi , knowing this, argued publicly that Impeachments did not need to have / be based on crimes.

Pelosi and Schiff argued that Trump was such a 'threat' to the country (despite not having a crime, Evidence, or witnesses) and that he needed to be removed from office Immediately; however, after rendering a verdict to Impeach Trump in the House, Pelosi withheld Articles of Impeachment from the Senate for WEEKS.

The reason she did so was an abuse of power in an attempt to force the Senate to adopt Pelosi's House rules for Impeachment, the rules Nadler believed to be Un-Constitutional.

Pelosi knew the only way Trump could be Impeached was based on her Un-Constitutional rules because they did not have a crime, evidence, or witnesses. Forcing the Senate to adopt her rules was a higher importance than her proven bogus claim that Trump was so dangerous he needed to be removed from office immediately.

Her gambit failed; however, in the Senate, Schiff took over.

From falsely claiming to have a non-existent whistleblower to illegally authoring / creating and submitting false (a false transcript of a phone call) evidence, Schiff was caught / exposed for criminally / treadonously ma ufacturing evidence in an attempt to overthrow the US govt by illegally trying to remove a sitti g President from office.

In this new book we now see even Nadler opposed Pelosi's and Schiff's treasonous Impeachment, believing it to be Un-Constitutional.


You mean this guy, with this statement still up on his website:
“I am deeply grateful to the remarkable House Impeachment Managers and staff members—led by the peerless Lead Impeachment Manager Rep. Raskin—who prosecuted the case with unflagging brilliance and poise. Fifty-seven Senators—Democrats and Republicans both—voted today with their conscience to convict Trump. The seven Republicans who voted to convict are additional proof of the reprehensibility of Trump's misconduct—their colleagues must recognize that this trial offered not a test of partisanship but rather one of morality. Forty-three Republican senators, whose lack of courage allowed them to exculpate the man guilty of instigating the attack that placed their own lives in peril, failed that test today.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
20,523
Reaction score
20,763
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
It was....and CRIMINAL!

A new book claims Nadler opposed the Impeachment of Trump by Pelosi and Schiff based on the rules by which the two ordered the Impeachment to be conducted.

By their rules the Judiciaty Committee, which Nadler chaired, could not cross-examine witnesses. Nadler believed this to be Un-Constitutional and that Republicans and critics would use that against Democrats.

Nadler, of course, was right, but there was much more. Just about everything about the Impeachment was either Un-Constitutional, Criminal, or both.

Pelosi promised the country she would not allow the Impeachment to go forward unless the Democrats had 2 things:
1. Bipartisanship
2. 'UNDENIABLE' Evidence


Pelosi allowed the Impeachment to go forward despite having neither.

1. Bipartisanship:
Not 1 Republican sided with the Democrats in supporting Impeachment

otNo1N
2. 'Undeniable' Evidence:
During the Impeachment Democrats proved they had no legitimate crime, no evidence, and no witnesses.

At one point Pelosi , knowing this, argued publicly that Impeachments did not need to have / be based on crimes.

Pelosi and Schiff argued that Trump was such a 'threat' to the country (despite not having a crime, Evidence, or witnesses) and that he needed to be removed from office Immediately; however, after rendering a verdict to Impeach Trump in the House, Pelosi withheld Articles of Impeachment from the Senate for WEEKS.

The reason she did so was an abuse of power in an attempt to force the Senate to adopt Pelosi's House rules for Impeachment, the rules Nadler believed to be Un-Constitutional.

Pelosi knew the only way Trump could be Impeached was based on her Un-Constitutional rules because they did not have a crime, evidence, or witnesses. Forcing the Senate to adopt her rules was a higher importance than her proven bogus claim that Trump was so dangerous he needed to be removed from office immediately.

Her gambit failed; however, in the Senate, Schiff took over.

From falsely claiming to have a non-existent whistleblower to illegally authoring / creating and submitting false (a false transcript of a phone call) evidence, Schiff was caught / exposed for criminally / treadonously ma ufacturing evidence in an attempt to overthrow the US govt by illegally trying to remove a sitti g President from office.

In this new book we now see even Nadler opposed Pelosi's and Schiff's treasonous Impeachment, believing it to be Un-Constitutional.


But Nadler complied just the same. He is as guilty as Piglosi and Schiff for brains.
 

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
47,740
Reaction score
11,310
Points
2,030
Oh well. The impeachment was successful
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
82,798
Reaction score
49,984
Points
2,645
Nadler,of course, the Chairman of the Judicial Committee, led Democrats in Censuring the US AG for REFUSING TO VIOLATE US LAW.

Nadler demanded US AG Barr hand over on-going Grand Jury information. BY LAW the US AG could not legally do so...which you would think the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would know AND respect.

Nadler did not.

In response to the US AG's refusal to violate US law by releasing the Information, Badler led Democrats in the 'successful' Censure of the US AG.
 

Clipper

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
8,981
Reaction score
5,135
Points
940
Projection. You and the democrats that support your line of thinking are deranged.
If they had used the 25th on 45 he probably wouldn't have been able to engage in espionage by ripping off top secret docs & using them against his own Country. They have enough evidence on your boy right now to lock him up for thext 100 years.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
83,889
Reaction score
39,153
Points
2,290
You mean this guy, with this statement still up on his website:
“I am deeply grateful to the remarkable House Impeachment Managers and staff members—led by the peerless Lead Impeachment Manager Rep. Raskin—who prosecuted the case with unflagging brilliance and poise. Fifty-seven Senators—Democrats and Republicans both—voted today with their conscience to convict Trump. The seven Republicans who voted to convict are additional proof of the reprehensibility of Trump's misconduct—their colleagues must recognize that this trial offered not a test of partisanship but rather one of morality. Forty-three Republican senators, whose lack of courage allowed them to exculpate the man guilty of instigating the attack that placed their own lives in peril, failed that test today.
Wrong impeachment.
 
OP
easyt65

easyt65

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
82,798
Reaction score
49,984
Points
2,645
Clipper said:
They should have used the 25th against 45 because he's a deranged psychopath as unfit for office as Manson was.


Thank you for that TDS-suffering, scream-at-the-sky, mentally unstable OPINION from another deranged Trump-obsessed snowflake still praying for 'We got him THIS time' moment after nearly 7 YEARS of continuous failure.

download.jpeg-2.jpg



laughing hilariously.jpg
 

White 6

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
28,948
Reaction score
16,812
Points
1,290
Wrong impeachment.
That was from February 13, 2021. Trump was impeached twice. It is naturally hard to keep them straight. Since this is the Hoyer thread, after seeing a Trump "won sign" recently at a county fair, I assumed the impeachment being discussed was the 2nd one.
 

The Original Tree

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
40,556
Reaction score
17,338
Points
2,300
Location
OHIO
It was....and CRIMINAL!

A new book claims Nadler opposed the Impeachment of Trump by Pelosi and Schiff based on the rules by which the two ordered the Impeachment to be conducted.

By their rules the Judiciaty Committee, which Nadler chaired, could not cross-examine witnesses. Nadler believed this to be Un-Constitutional and that Republicans and critics would use that against Democrats.

Nadler, of course, was right, but there was much more. Just about everything about the Impeachment was either Un-Constitutional, Criminal, or both.

Pelosi promised the country she would not allow the Impeachment to go forward unless the Democrats had 2 things:
1. Bipartisanship
2. 'UNDENIABLE' Evidence


Pelosi allowed the Impeachment to go forward despite having neither.

1. Bipartisanship:
Not 1 Republican sided with the Democrats in supporting Impeachment

otNo1N
2. 'Undeniable' Evidence:
During the Impeachment Democrats proved they had no legitimate crime, no evidence, and no witnesses.

At one point Pelosi , knowing this, argued publicly that Impeachments did not need to have / be based on crimes.

Pelosi and Schiff argued that Trump was such a 'threat' to the country (despite not having a crime, Evidence, or witnesses) and that he needed to be removed from office Immediately; however, after rendering a verdict to Impeach Trump in the House, Pelosi withheld Articles of Impeachment from the Senate for WEEKS.

The reason she did so was an abuse of power in an attempt to force the Senate to adopt Pelosi's House rules for Impeachment, the rules Nadler believed to be Un-Constitutional.

Pelosi knew the only way Trump could be Impeached was based on her Un-Constitutional rules because they did not have a crime, evidence, or witnesses. Forcing the Senate to adopt her rules was a higher importance than her proven bogus claim that Trump was so dangerous he needed to be removed from office immediately.

Her gambit failed; however, in the Senate, Schiff took over.

From falsely claiming to have a non-existent whistleblower to illegally authoring / creating and submitting false (a false transcript of a phone call) evidence, Schiff was caught / exposed for criminally / treadonously ma ufacturing evidence in an attempt to overthrow the US govt by illegally trying to remove a sitti g President from office.

In this new book we now see even Nadler opposed Pelosi's and Schiff's treasonous Impeachment, believing it to be Un-Constitutional.


The entire Operation Russian Collusion Crossfire Hurricane was not only illegal and Unconstitutional it was an ACT OF WAR against our Democracy, and COUP against a duly elected president. It was Sedition, Treason, and Insurrection all rolled into a 4 year long siege of The White House and continues until this day.

Everyone involved should be hung for it.
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
83,889
Reaction score
39,153
Points
2,290
That was from February 13, 2021. Trump was impeached twice. It is naturally hard to keep them straight. Since this is the Hoyer thread, after seeing a Trump "won sign" recently at a county fair, I assumed the impeachment being discussed was the 2nd one.
wrong thread too :lol: 😝
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
20,523
Reaction score
20,763
Points
2,288
Location
In your head
If they had used the 25th on 45 he probably wouldn't have been able to engage in espionage by ripping off top secret docs & using them against his own Country. They have enough evidence on your boy right now to lock him up for thext 100 years.
Sure they do. Just like they had the evidence to impeach and remove him from office. Dream on little broomstick cowboy. Tomorrow is another day. If they had the evidence, he would be in jail. They don't so, all you have are your wishes. Put them in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first.
 

BlindBoo

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
47,740
Reaction score
11,310
Points
2,030
just as any impeachments of Biden will be.

after all, as proven with Trump, there is no need of a crime, just need a partisan majority.
The Ukraine strongarm ploy was impeachable and was not done out of revenge. The Trumpybear was practically and morally responsible for the Jan 6th attack.

The Neo-GOP owns Donnies corruption

Vote them out ladies. The Neo-GOP is just mean, spiteful, and hellbent on revenge.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top