Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[joaquinmiller]

Abso Absolu

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

Absolutely I stick with it. Not a shred of evidence was presented to prove anything that these paid assassins had to say. It was all presumption, and what Trump did was good and proper, so who cares what these fools said ?

Which, as one of the committee Republicans said "means nothing"

Good job Mr President....of showing the American people what corrupt lowlifes the Bidens' are, and who Democrat idiots put this jerk up as a POTUS candidate.

You're proving you've mastered colonic breathing. It's hard to see anything like that.

 

[jc456]

Abso Absolu

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

If you can't assess the credibility of the complaint by comparing it with the partial transcript from the White House and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the House, it's because you're determined not to.

There were no "witnesses". None of them witnessed any crime. They were just just hired character assassins

.

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

Absolutely I stick with it. Not a shred of evidence was presented to prove anything that these paid assassins had to say. It was all presumption, and what Trump did was good and proper, so who cares what these fools said ?

Which, as one of the committee Republicans said "means nothing"

Good job Mr President....of showing the American people what corrupt lowlifes the Bidens' are, and who Democrat idiots put this jerk up as a POTUS candidate.

You're proving you've mastered colonic breathing. It's hard to see anything like that.

so, was the transcript wrong? which one testified to that?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Right, you stick with that.

Of course there were witnesses. Vindman listened to the call and reported the extortion attempt immediately. Fiona Hill was instructed by Bolton to tell Counsel he wasn't in on Mulvaney and the Bagman's 'drug deal'. As I said, determined not to see it.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

 

[jc456]

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

 

[joaquinmiller]

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

I pass. Sell stupid somewhere else.

 

[protectionist]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

The House (as it is now) has no control over US politics, and what might actually get done.

In 2021, that will change, when Republicans have full control over all 3 branches of the government. The Democratic party will cease to exist.

 

[jc456]

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

I pass. Sell stupid somewhere else.

yep, you pass as stupid, I agree. you got nothing.

 

[protectionist]

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

abuse of power and obstruction of congress aren't crimes. you know this right? so why again was none of the testimony used for articles?

Maybe JM has to pass on this question. I don't. The reason is because this whole farce masquerading as an impeachment, never has been anything more than a desperation ruse to demonize Trump, in the hope that some independent voters might be dissuaded from voting for him.

Since it,s not a real impeachment anyway, it hardly would matter to the connivers what the rules are.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

The House (as it is now) has no control over US politics, and what might actually get done.

In 2021, that will change, when Republicans have full control over all 3 branches of the government. The Democratic party will cease to exist.

Autocracies only need one party. Are you sure that's what you want?

 

[jc456]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

The House (as it is now) has no control over US politics, and what might actually get done.

In 2021, that will change, when Republicans have full control over all 3 branches of the government. The Democratic party will cease to exist.

Autocracies only need one party. Are you sure that's what you want?

it seems it is yours. how is that stupid going for you?

 

[Rambunctious]

The Constitution and the House and Senate rules are quite clear.

Which means you don't know squat about the Constitution, or the House and Senate rules.


keep playing...

Faun is a moron....

LOL

Slobbers a flaming imbecile who thinks Impeached Trump wasn't impeached.

Until Pelosi has the balls to send it to the senate I and most people will consider the impeachment in limbo....

silly you..............


you don't matter.

I will save this post for you so you can see how much Trump voters do matter in November...Okay?....the world is changing right before your eyes...people are moving away from your way of thinking all over the nation and the world...it will leave you behind wondering what happened unless you turn off CNN and get with the program.....

 

[Care4all]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

 

[Nostra]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

 

[jc456]

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used?

It was. Under oath, Gomer! You're just providing more evidence (as if it were needed) that you're determined not to see it.

which article is it? come on lucy, where is it at?

If you watched the hearings, you heard it. If you didn't, shut up about it.

dude, why isn't it used in the articles? why you avoiding answering that?

The testimony and report inform the Articles. I'm not avoiding your silly question. If you don't want to see it, you won't.

so, was the transcript wrong? which one testified to that?

 

[jc456]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

so why is peloser holding onto the articles if the people want a trial? you're turning into a pretzel.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

Is that why you did your sham investigation in secret and without Trumps or Republican input? Now you want only your sham to have credibility and deny Trump and those who voted for him due process in the Senate just like you did in the house!.

 

[jc456]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

I'm really wondering why peloser is holding onto them if the people want a trial. Shouldn't matter how the senate is set up if it's from the people. Carefull is all turned into a pretzel.

 

[Care4all]

Can anyone cite any laws that Speaker Pelosi is violating by withholding the articles of impeachment until she has some assurance of a fair trial in the Senate? She is certainly not violating the Constitution.

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

There was no FIX in the house. You were lied to.

There is no Trial in the House, and the founders specifically made it easier for the house to impeach... which means basically, to indict.... they only need a probable cause as well to indict..... And the Congressmen do not need to take any special oath on impeachment..... And only a majority is needed to bring impeachment indictments, So it was designed to be more political if it be..... in the House.

The founders then made it fair, serious, just..... in the Senate.
The Senators have to take an oath under God. Or whomever, to do justice through thoroughness, examining all the evidence impartially, allowing for legal representation of the defendant, allowing the defendant to bring forth their exculpatory evidence and witnesses to counter the prosecution's, it has a Sc Justice to oversee it, and unlike the house with a mere majority to indict, the Senate needs 2/3s of the Senators, to convict and remove....And they need BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to convict, which is a greater burden.

The founders believed the Senate trial was where a fair impeachment trial could take place and put in measures, especially their newly sworn, impeachment OATH, to do just that....

They never anticipated Senators would be partisan, partial, jurors.... there were not political parties at the time of our founders either, nor were Senators elected by we the people, they were chosen by State legislatures is my understanding of the time....

 

[Nostra]

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

There was no FIX in the house. You were lied to.

There is no Trial in the House, and the founders specifically made it easier for the house to impeach... which means basically, to indict.... they only need a probable cause as well to indict..... And the Congressmen do not need to take any special oath on impeachment..... And only a majority is needed to bring impeachment indictments, So it was designed to be more political if it be..... in the House.

The founders then made it fair, serious, just..... in the Senate.
The Senators have to take an oath under God. Or whomever, to do justice through thoroughness, examining all the evidence impartially, allowing for legal representation of the defendant, allowing the defendant to bring forth their exculpatory evidence and witnesses to counter the prosecution's, it has a Sc Justice to oversee it, and unlike the house with a mere majority to indict, the Senate needs 2/3s of the Senators, to convict and remove....

The founders believed the Senate trial was where a fair impeachment trial could take place and put in measures, especially their newly sworn, impeachment OATH, to do just that....

They never anticipated Senators would be partisan, impartial, jurors.... there were not political parties at the time of our founders either, nor were Senators elected by we the people, they were chosen by State legislatures is my understanding of the time....

The entire farce in the House was fixed.

 

[jc456]

She can hold them along with her breath until she turns blue, but she has no control over the Senate.

the senate nor the executive branch have any control over the house.

And the last I checked, they're not trying to. She, OTOH, is trying to dictate terms under which she will fulfill her Constitutional duty to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. McConnell should give her nothing.

Who cares what McConnell wants to give her,

It's the American people that deserve and demand a trial that is not a predetermined SHAM, which McConnell promised to deliver to the President, on FOX News, to all the world's viewers.

Is that honestly what you want, a The FIX IS IN appearance, so to show the world how YOU are Making America Great Again?

Have you no decency and honor left in you?

Please, for the love of Country, stop this kind of corrupt crap!!!!

you applauded the fix in the House.

There was no FIX in the house. You were lied to.

There is no Trial in the House, and the founders specifically made it easier for the house to impeach... which means basically, to indict.... they only need a probable cause as well to indict..... And the Congressmen do not need to take any special oath on impeachment..... And only a majority is needed to bring impeachment indictments, So it was designed to be more political if it be..... in the House.

The founders then made it fair, serious, just..... in the Senate.
The Senators have to take an oath under God. Or whomever, to do justice through thoroughness, examining all the evidence impartially, allowing for legal representation of the defendant, allowing the defendant to bring forth their exculpatory evidence and witnesses to counter the prosecution's, it has a Sc Justice to oversee it, and unlike the house with a mere majority to indict, the Senate needs 2/3s of the Senators, to convict and remove....And they need BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to convict, which is a greater burden.

The founders believed the Senate trial was where a fair impeachment trial could take place and put in measures, especially their newly sworn, impeachment OATH, to do just that....

They never anticipated Senators would be partisan, partial, jurors.... there were not political parties at the time of our founders either, nor were Senators elected by we the people, they were chosen by State legislatures is my understanding of the time....

then why weren't republicans allowed to bring in witnesses?

ewww, those erie witnesses that would have shut this all down. too fking funny. you're just another parrot with an arm up your ass.