Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You claimed it was "unanimous".Really dude? You are a complete moron.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.
230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.
Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
Keep it up, this is hilarious.
The impeachment proceedings were hilarious, and the outcome predictable. Your president was impeached. How does that sit with you? Do you believe it, or is it all a conspiracy?
Pelosi's Gaffes Are More Than Just Bloopers - NRNshe has absolutely no influence in the senate. still waiting on how you figure this means leverageToo bad. She knew when she started it wasn't gonna go anywhere. Reminds me of the 2000 election. The rules didn't work in their favor so they tried to change them retroactively. Doesn't work that way.
Impeachment and removal from office are two separate things. She is only oversees one and only has influence in the other so she's simply looking to get the fairest trail she can for the findings that were realized in the House. Again, you can disagree with the impeachment results but the OP is making up reasons for her actions now and the wingnut stupidity is painful to watch.
She can hold off sending the impeachment articles to the senate way before or just before an election, that's influence. She could hold off articles of impeachment while a coupe of moderate senators are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents telling them they want a full trial. That's influence. I have no idea if any of this would work but she does have some influence. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.
It's a bit of brilliant ploy, and I'm not even a huge Pelosi fan.
She is smart.
Pelousy's game has already ended. She has no more say in it.What difference does it make? Impeachment is DOA anyway.She wants to know what the rules are going to be in the senate so that McConnell doesn't attempt to kill any impeachment trial thus rendering what she feels is important for our country to fall by the way side. You don't have to agree with her to recognize the obvious.
Well no, he was impeached. That already happened. The House performed it's role and that vote was counted.
Of course Trump will not be convicted in the senate. But if 2 or 3 Republicans vote to throw him out then politically there is something to that. Anyway, I don't even think that would be Pelosi's end game. She just wants a full trial with witnesses.
You claimed it was "unanimous".Really dude? You are a complete moron.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.
Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
Keep it up, this is hilarious.
The impeachment proceedings were hilarious, and the outcome predictable. Your president was impeached. How does that sit with you? Do you believe it, or is it all a conspiracy?
And it isn't official until Nazi takes it to the Senate.
Nope. Once again you are delusional. No impeachment until it gets to the Senate.You claimed it was "unanimous".Really dude? You are a complete moron.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?
You really are dumb.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?
You really are dumb.
Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
Keep it up, this is hilarious.
The impeachment proceedings were hilarious, and the outcome predictable. Your president was impeached. How does that sit with you? Do you believe it, or is it all a conspiracy?
And it isn't official until Nazi takes it to the Senate.
Wrong. Flat out wrong. The *pResident was impeached. The deed is done. That asterisk is forever, I'm afraid. The Senate votes for conviction and removal. You know this, yes?
Not very brilliant when the Faux Impeachment was really about The 2020 Election and she is turning people against her and rallying them to The President's side.she has absolutely no influence in the senate. still waiting on how you figure this means leverageImpeachment and removal from office are two separate things. She is only oversees one and only has influence in the other so she's simply looking to get the fairest trail she can for the findings that were realized in the House. Again, you can disagree with the impeachment results but the OP is making up reasons for her actions now and the wingnut stupidity is painful to watch.
She can hold off sending the impeachment articles to the senate way before or just before an election, that's influence. She could hold off articles of impeachment while a coupe of moderate senators are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents telling them they want a full trial. That's influence. I have no idea if any of this would work but she does have some influence. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.
It's a bit of brilliant ploy, and I'm not even a huge Pelosi fan.
Dare to dream, I suppose. You do understand that your *pResident was impeached, right? Right?
every person is entitled to opinions, however, hearsay is not evidence. But opinions based on law is ok by me.he's your guy. And, there have been others now. son, you're in a no win here. why not take the embarrassment you've already gotten and walk away.A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument: Trump Has Not Yet Been Impeachedno it didn't. It happens when she hands the articles to the senate, then he was impeached. until such time, she's
Link?
So an article with one contrarian point of view (from a professor whose opinion you don't care about anyway) that goes out of it's way to state that most think he is impeached is somehow proof to you? It's not.
No, he's a guy whose opinion I respect but would not put above everyone else.
Where as you guys don't respect his opinion at all during the impeachment hearing yet now will apparently ignore everyone else in favor of him. I guess you now also believe that Trump committed impeachable offenses.
The President has an IQ of 140, and Nancy can barely break 100 and is going senile.Not very brilliant when the Faux Impeachment was really about The 2020 Election and she is turning people against her and rallying them to The President's side.she has absolutely no influence in the senate. still waiting on how you figure this means leverageImpeachment and removal from office are two separate things. She is only oversees one and only has influence in the other so she's simply looking to get the fairest trail she can for the findings that were realized in the House. Again, you can disagree with the impeachment results but the OP is making up reasons for her actions now and the wingnut stupidity is painful to watch.
She can hold off sending the impeachment articles to the senate way before or just before an election, that's influence. She could hold off articles of impeachment while a coupe of moderate senators are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents telling them they want a full trial. That's influence. I have no idea if any of this would work but she does have some influence. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.
It's a bit of brilliant ploy, and I'm not even a huge Pelosi fan.
Dare to dream, I suppose. You do understand that your *pResident was impeached, right? Right?
Nope. Once again you are delusional. No impeachment until it gets to the Senate.You claimed it was "unanimous".Really dude? You are a complete moron.Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
Keep it up, this is hilarious.
The impeachment proceedings were hilarious, and the outcome predictable. Your president was impeached. How does that sit with you? Do you believe it, or is it all a conspiracy?
And it isn't official until Nazi takes it to the Senate.
Wrong. Flat out wrong. The *pResident was impeached. The deed is done. That asterisk is forever, I'm afraid. The Senate votes for conviction and removal. You know this, yes?
Tell us again how a vote of 230-197 is "unanimous".
what is if he isn't removed and voted in in 2020? how so? explain your backward hostage scenario to us.What difference does it make? Impeachment is DOA anyway.She wants to know what the rules are going to be in the senate so that McConnell doesn't attempt to kill any impeachment trial thus rendering what she feels is important for our country to fall by the way side. You don't have to agree with her to recognize the obvious.
Well no, he was impeached. That already happened. The House performed it's role and that vote was counted.
Of course Trump will not be convicted in the senate. But if 2 or 3 Republicans vote to throw him out then politically there is something to that. Anyway, I don't even think that would be Pelosi's end game. She just wants a full trial with witnesses.
son you can play make believe everyday for all I care, the fact remains, he isn't impeached yet.nope. keep trying.he wasn't. that's what you don't understand. hly fk.huh? what is her leverage son? come on beat us down with this genius of yours. Mitch gives two shits if she uses that paper for wiping her ass. how is it she has leverage/ this isn't his thing it's hers. dude, you are very confused. hly fk.
Mitch didn't ask her to perform the impeachment. that was her. so she kidnapped her own kid and wants some bad guy to give her money for her kid. too fking funny.
Mitch doesn't care that Trump was impeached? I doubt that.
Anyway, I've already answered this.
she's holding her own kid hostage, and you think mitch is concerned. no friend, that just makes you a fking idiot of the century.
He was impeached when the articles were voted on.
I don't have to try, it happened.
Not very brilliant when the Faux Impeachment was really about The 2020 Election and she is turning people against her and rallying them to The President's side.she has absolutely no influence in the senate. still waiting on how you figure this means leverage
She can hold off sending the impeachment articles to the senate way before or just before an election, that's influence. She could hold off articles of impeachment while a coupe of moderate senators are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents telling them they want a full trial. That's influence. I have no idea if any of this would work but she does have some influence. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.
It's a bit of brilliant ploy, and I'm not even a huge Pelosi fan.
Dare to dream, I suppose. You do understand that your *pResident was impeached, right? Right?
You do realize that Nazi Pelosi won't be speaker in 11 months, correct, and that Donald Trump will be re-elected in a landslide and also take The House Back?
Nancy Pelosi - California - Public-sector labor union contributions
Pelosi Keeps Getting Tongue Tied at the 2019 NAACP Convention [Full Remarks]
BLOOPER: Nancy Pelosi Is An Annoying Little Gnat
How Some US Presidents Rank According To IQ • Page 22 of 46
So ima sit on these articles of impeachment because it's so important that we try to remove him....
So, do you believe the two Articles of Impeachment presented by the House, rendering this *pResident impeached by unanimous vote is unconstitutional? If you don't, can you please provide details why you think so?
impeached by unanimous vote is unconstitutional?
Unanimous? Dude!
So, having the majority of votes to impeach isn't unanimous anymore? Who controls the house?
You clearly of no idea what unanimous means.
Did you go to even elementary school?
Did you? In that particular chamber of Congress, the majority was in full agreement and voted for impeachment. Your feelings won't change that permanent asterisk on this *pResident's record.
The President has an IQ of 140, and Nancy can barely break 100 and is going senile.Not very brilliant when the Faux Impeachment was really about The 2020 Election and she is turning people against her and rallying them to The President's side.she has absolutely no influence in the senate. still waiting on how you figure this means leverage
She can hold off sending the impeachment articles to the senate way before or just before an election, that's influence. She could hold off articles of impeachment while a coupe of moderate senators are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents telling them they want a full trial. That's influence. I have no idea if any of this would work but she does have some influence. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand.
It's a bit of brilliant ploy, and I'm not even a huge Pelosi fan.
Dare to dream, I suppose. You do understand that your *pResident was impeached, right? Right?
Who do you think will win this test of wits?
Not Nancy.
Room temp, at best. There's nothing extraordinary about con men.So, do you believe the two Articles of Impeachment presented by the House, rendering this *pResident impeached by unanimous vote is unconstitutional? If you don't, can you please provide details why you think so?
impeached by unanimous vote is unconstitutional?
Unanimous? Dude!
So, having the majority of votes to impeach isn't unanimous anymore? Who controls the house?
You clearly of no idea what unanimous means.
Did you go to even elementary school?
Did you? In that particular chamber of Congress, the majority was in full agreement and voted for impeachment. Your feelings won't change that permanent asterisk on this *pResident's record.
Yeah, that's not even true
230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.Unanimous vote? You really are clueless.
Who has the majority in the House, genius? Do you even understand how government works? Unanimous. Get a clue.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.Unanimous vote? You really are clueless.
Who has the majority in the House, genius? Do you even understand how government works? Unanimous. Get a clue.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.
Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.Who has the majority in the House, genius? Do you even understand how government works? Unanimous. Get a clue.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.Who has the majority in the House, genius? Do you even understand how government works? Unanimous. Get a clue.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.
Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
Dude,
Just admit that you are a fucking retard -
Wipe the fucking drool off the keyboard and move on.
impeached by unanimous vote is unconstitutional?
Unanimous? Dude!
So, having the majority of votes to impeach isn't unanimous anymore? Who controls the house?
You clearly of no idea what unanimous means.
Did you go to even elementary school?
Did you? In that particular chamber of Congress, the majority was in full agreement and voted for impeachment. Your feelings won't change that permanent asterisk on this *pResident's record.
Yeah, that's not even true
You believe the *pResident wasn't impeached?
230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.230-197 is "full agreement"? "Unanimous"?Apparently, you have no clue what "unanimous" means. Most Libtards have trouble with big words, so don't feel bad.
Unanimous means in full agreement. In the House, the majority voted for impeachment. You can't change the meaning of words because they offend your feelings. Unanimous. Maybe English isn't your first language. Maybe you're just an idiot, I won't speculate.
You really are dumb.
Is 230 a larger number than 197? Take your time...
Dude,
Just admit that you are a fucking retard -
Wipe the fucking drool off the keyboard and move on.
I will just as soon as you take those tiny Orange balls out of your mouth. Fair enough?
Show us this 'unanimous' vote.impeached by unanimous vote is unconstitutional?
Unanimous? Dude!
So, having the majority of votes to impeach isn't unanimous anymore? Who controls the house?
You clearly of no idea what unanimous means.
Did you go to even elementary school?
Did you? In that particular chamber of Congress, the majority was in full agreement and voted for impeachment. Your feelings won't change that permanent asterisk on this *pResident's record.
Yeah, that's not even true
You believe the *pResident wasn't impeached?
