Impeachment Bitch Says She Might Play More Games With the Constitution

[Camp]

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.

 

[The Purge]

EXTORTION: Nancy Pelosi Threatens to Withhold Impeachment Articles from Senate Republicans

Townhall.com ^ | December 18, 2019 | Matt Vespa

Well, the final vote in the House of Representatives was not a shocker. House Democrats' lust to impeach President Trump on some shoddy quid pro quo allegation over military aid to Ukraine passed after nearly 12 hours of debate. As Katie wrote, the vote was 229-198-1. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a 2020 Democratic candidate, voted present, while Reps. Jeff Van Drew (D-NJ) and Collin Peterson (D-MN) voted with Republicans against this witch-hunt.


Today was truly a clown show, with scores of Democrats trying to make the case that Trump is an existential threat to the United States. There was a lot of hot air. The evidence against Trump is the very definition of weak sauce. It’s so thin and so nakedly partisan that swing-state voters are sour on impeachment. This move by Democrats has increased the president’s popularity. It hasn’t moved the needle. In fact, the approval numbers for impeachment are now underwater. It has done the exact opposite of what Democrats had hoped, and this could be one massive in-kind contribution to the 2020 Trump campaign. Maybe within the leadership, they know this too, but they’re at the point of no return. They promised their base impeachment and it very well could allow Trump to cruise to re-election.

Knowing that the Republican Senate will dispense of their so-called evidence for impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has threatened to withhold transmitting the articles to the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already rejected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) parameters for the trial. McConnell slapped them down, along with cutting through the nonsense about his role in this Democrat-manufactured fantasy. He’s not going to be impartial.

“I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it,” he said on Tuesday.

Knowing these articles face certain death with Senate Republicans, Pelosi and House Democrats now appear to be engaging in political extortion. Just watch. This is all about Senate Republicans rejecting Democratic calls for witnesses. That’s not how this works, lady. You folks, the House Democrats, decided what’s impeachable. The Senate holds a trial based on your work. And your work is total and complete nonsense.

Nancy Pelosi won't commit to sending the House Democrats' sham articles of impeachment over to the Senate.

Basically confirming what we've known all along this impeachment is a WITCH HUNT & A SHAM! pic.twitter.com/2KGQBkIsSE— Francis Brennan (@FrancisBrennan) December 19, 2019

Pelosi indicates the House may hold the articles of impeachment and not send then to the Senate until it’s understood the Senate will conduct a fair trial— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) December 19, 2019

If Trump is so dangerous to the country and the world, why wait?!?!?! Susan Ferrechio on Twitter— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) December 19, 2019

“We’ll decide what that dynamic is,” Pelosi told reporters after the vote. Politico has more:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned the House may not immediately transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate out of concerns Republicans won't conduct impartial proceedings at a trial.

Pelosi refused to commit to any timeline for sending the articles, which is required to begin the impeachment trial.

"So far, we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us," Pelosi told reporters shortly after the House approved two articles of impeachment against Trump. "But right now, the president is impeached."

Well, that’s not your call, Nancy. Your party is not the majority in the senate. We’re the majority. And we’re going to end this clown show. The longer you hang onto this the more popular Trump becomes and the more key swing states Democrats need to win in 2020 fall further out of reach. So, please, keep playing this game. Oh, and removing Trump from office requires 67 Senators. This just isn’t in the works.

The irony is thick. Democrats think Trump is dangerous and must be removed because he abuses his power, and we have Democrats abusing their power to try and get Trump removed from the Oval Office, possibly sending us into a constitutional crisis with these games. To save the Constitution, we have to destroy the Constitution. We have to shred parts and go around others. That’s quite the formula there for salvation, though one that could only come from the mind of a historically illiterate and petulant Democrat. They’re just giving us this election.

 

[sparky]

~S~

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

 

[Penelope]

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.

Every impeachment is partisan. You didn't expect the democrats to release Star on Clinton since 93 did you.

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

Well Mitch said he is working with the White House to make this as favourable as possible for them. Nancy should just sit on it until she gets a fair trial... No point sending it down to carpet bagger Mitch to say nothing to see and rubber stamp it closed...

Keeping it gives the Democrats options... Smart Nancy beats them again... If Trump won re-election and Dems get Senate then they could have it in Feb '21..

Another hater of the Constitution and democracy speaks.

Where does it say in the constitution that the congress has to send the impeachment to senate immediately?

 

[Terri4Trump]

Nancy “Impeachment Bitch” 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'

She's a fascist

 

[Camp]

Pelosi should reconvene the House Judicial 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 heaCommittee ring will know their subpoena is meaningless

This would be a momentous historical decision. Justices may take their decisions very seriously and not want to be on the wrong side of history.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

The check will thump her in the head when the Senate quickly kills this donkey show.

 

[The Purge]

Pollak: Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.


She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.

Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.

That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

That is all.

The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

You’re in Mitch’s court, now.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

Pollak: Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment | Breitbart

 

[22lcidw]

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.

I can assure you that Pelosi doesn't want a "fair" trial in the Senate. That would mean that many Democrats would be called to the stand, exposing their lies. Schiff would NOT want to testify, for example.

Which Democrats would have first-hand knowledge of trump & co.'s dealings with the Ukrainians or their refusal of subpoenas? What would they be lying about? Why would Schiff be called to testify? What about? He's not associated with either count against trump.

The people in trump's inner circle at the time of his offenses still have not testified under oath, and trump himself certainly has not. These are the people we need to hear from.

Paying attention to the deplorables is not in your interest. They are arming themselves to the teeth. They are forming militias in counties outside urban/semi urban areas. They are defending themselves much more heavily with guns in house break ins. They are more and more carrying weapons on them. In one decade you have awakened a lot of people who have struggled to survive themselves. This trend will continue and they will become more proficient in weapon use as we return to a hair trigger survival nation. You guys need to pull back a bit. Every confrontation causes more determination to protect themselves. I care not when Prog attacks Prog.

 

[debbiedowner]

If Nancy doesn't send the Articles to the senate they are meaningless. The next congress can simply repeal them.

Would the next congress have to re-vote on them before sending them? In other words, isn't it defacto repealed if they sit on it until the next congress?

I believe that's called a "pocket veto". If it doesn't pass in one session of congress it dies.
So Nancy has about 400 Bills that passed the House, but will die if Mitch or Trump don't both sign them.

You know I don't think a pocket veto applies to impeachment I do think that once impeached by the congress, who has sole responsibility of impeachment, stands.

 

[Bush92]

Nancy “Impeachment Bitch” 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'

She's a fascist

She is the “Impeachment Bitch” who wants to destroy our country.

 

[Bush92]

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.

I can assure you that Pelosi doesn't want a "fair" trial in the Senate. That would mean that many Democrats would be called to the stand, exposing their lies. Schiff would NOT want to testify, for example.

Which Democrats would have first-hand knowledge of trump & co.'s dealings with the Ukrainians or their refusal of subpoenas? What would they be lying about? Why would Schiff be called to testify? What about? He's not associated with either count against trump.

The people in trump's inner circle at the time of his offenses still have not testified under oath, and trump himself certainly has not. These are the people we need to hear from.

Paying attention to the deplorables is not in your interest. They are arming themselves to the teeth. They are forming militias in counties outside urban/semi urban areas. They are defending themselves much more heavily with guns in house break ins. They are more and more carrying weapons on them. In one decade you have awakened a lot of people who have struggled to survive themselves. This trend will continue and they will become more proficient in weapon use as we return to a hair trigger survival nation. You guys need to pull back a bit. Every confrontation causes more determination to protect themselves. I care not when Prog attacks Prog.

The Marxist have crossed a line and our now a creditable threat to our nation and all it stands for.

 

[wamose]

This proves that Pelosi doesn't believe she has a case against Trump. Actually, Schiff already proved that by running the closed door hearings that got us to this point.

 

[Bush92]

If Nancy doesn't send the Articles to the senate they are meaningless. The next congress can simply repeal them.

Would the next congress have to re-vote on them before sending them? In other words, isn't it defacto repealed if they sit on it until the next congress?

I believe that's called a "pocket veto". If it doesn't pass in one session of congress it dies.
So Nancy has about 400 Bills that passed the House, but will die if Mitch or Trump don't both sign them.

You know I don't think a pocket veto applies to impeachment I do think that once impeached by the congress, who has sole responsibility of impeachment, stands.

Bullshit. I’m calling bullshit on your whole premise. This is a political vendetta. Nothing more. Donald J. Trump’s crime was the fact that he beat Hillary in 2016.

 

[DBA]

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.

I can assure you that Pelosi doesn't want a "fair" trial in the Senate. That would mean that many Democrats would be called to the stand, exposing their lies. Schiff would NOT want to testify, for example.

Which Democrats would have first-hand knowledge of trump & co.'s dealings with the Ukrainians or their refusal of subpoenas? What would they be lying about? Why would Schiff be called to testify? What about? He's not associated with either count against trump.

The people in trump's inner circle at the time of his offenses still have not testified under oath, and trump himself certainly has not. These are the people we need to hear from.

The whistleblower needs to be cross-examined. His/her contact with Schiff could very much lead to an issue for Schiff, granted, that would be dealt with in a seperate hearing. My point is, the Democrats could find themselves opening a large can of worms with testimony.

 

[Bush92]

~S~

Fuck you. This is my country that I wore the uniform and fought for in combat. I will not step aside lightly. What nation are you from? Obviously not this one you ignorant cocksucker. If you think I am am supposed to forget where I came from, my 6 uncles who fought in World War Two (four of which were shot by Germans, two of which liberated the camps) my uncle at the Pusan Perimeter, my cousins in Vietnam, all the people I worked with as a steward for the United Steelworkers of America, and all the people I was born and raised with...you are sadly mistaken. There is nothing humorous or redundant when all the things I love in this world are placed in danger by some ignorant bitch from San Francisco.

 

[NightFox]

Just more evidence that Washington D.C. has been overrun by crack addled, hyper-partisan INFANTS?

Where does Nancy Pelosi get off believing that she can subvert the authority granted to the SENATE by the Constitution ? Doesn't she understand that once the HoR passes the articles of impeachment that according to the Constitution the HoR's role is done?

It appears that this lunatic thinks she can dictate the entire process regardless of the separation of powers explicitly defined within the Constitution which gives the Senate exclusive authority to try impeachments, her threat is Nixonian.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." -- Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 3

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

I can assure you that Pelosi doesn't want a "fair" trial in the Senate. That would mean that many Democrats would be called to the stand, exposing their lies. Schiff would NOT want to testify, for example.

Which Democrats would have first-hand knowledge of trump & co.'s dealings with the Ukrainians or their refusal of subpoenas? What would they be lying about? Why would Schiff be called to testify? What about? He's not associated with either count against trump.

The people in trump's inner circle at the time of his offenses still have not testified under oath, and trump himself certainly has not. These are the people we need to hear from.

Paying attention to the deplorables is not in your interest. They are arming themselves to the teeth. They are forming militias in counties outside urban/semi urban areas. They are defending themselves much more heavily with guns in house break ins. They are more and more carrying weapons on them. In one decade you have awakened a lot of people who have struggled to survive themselves. This trend will continue and they will become more proficient in weapon use as we return to a hair trigger survival nation. You guys need to pull back a bit. Every confrontation causes more determination to protect themselves. I care not when Prog attacks Prog.

What has happened to them that was so bad? What and who are they "protecting" themselves from that requires all this weaponry? What is so different for them that the rest of us haven't experienced over the last few decades? Many Americans have struggled to survive. Who do they want to shoot at? City-dwellers going about their business? Suburbanites mowing their lawns and barbecuing?