Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[Billy_Bob]

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....

You are in denial... And its massive...

 

[protectionist]

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

No. I forsee 2 parties. Republicans who want total tax cuts, and Republicans who support big tax increases on the individual rich. Examples >>

[

 

[protectionist]

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

Trump did that, when he called out the Biden boys.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Could you please explain why you believe this... what you actually saw or the Dems did to make you feel this way, so I can understand and be able to continue to debate with you on it?

 

[Faun]

it's not a campaign stunt, it is a maneuver to get the Senate to have an impartial trial with witnesses, and NOT a SHAM trial as Moscow Mitch, proposed and guaranteed on FOX news....

and her plan is working... looks like they have the Alaskan Senator willing to vote with Dems on witnesses, just two more needed or maybe three more, to guarantee, witnesses and evidence, can be brought forward in the trial.

Opening that door just gives McConnell a free hand to call whom he wants to call.

McConnell can do anything he wants. Peloser has zip to do about it.

turtle boy needs to have at least 51 (R)s to vote on any given rule. he cannot do anything he wants.

Nazi Pelousy did in the House. In fact, she is currently violating House rules by sitting on impeachment.

Oh? Quote the House rule she's violating....

<crickets>

 

[playtime]

auCONtraire - they were talking about holding a trial without the articles.... that didn't last long, though, because apparently it can't be done. you think turtleboy wouldn't have done it if he could?

They can still vote the thing out of existence immediately upon arrival, and there's nothing she can do about it.

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

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.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.

In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center


EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Docu...on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

you're welcome.

 

[protectionist]

Could you please explain why you believe this... what you actually saw or the Dems did to make you feel this way, so I can understand and be able to continue to debate with you on it?

You are kidding, no ?

 

[playtime]

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

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.

Impeached Trump's language demands this whistleblower's identity remain secret. Impeached Trump called the whistleblower a spy and pointed out we execute spies. Should the whistleblower's identity be revealed, their life will now be at risk because we have an unhinged president who says things he shouldn't.

The "whistleblower" life is at risk because the whistleblower put it at risk.

The president didn't say anything he shouldn't. He made an effort to stop corruption created by a treasonous president and a treasonous VP. For that, he is to be congratulated.

Thank you President Trump.

then why didn't donny stop aid to ukraine in 2017?

why didn't donny stop aid in 2018?

why did he stop aid after biden entered the race?

why wasn't anything mentioned about corruption in any phone calls?

why would donny ask for 'a favor' from a corrupt government?

yaaaaaaaaaaa...................... we know why.

 

[BS Filter]

There is no impeachment until the Senate receives the articles.

 

[protectionist]

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.

In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center


EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

you're welcome.

All irrelevant when one (the whistleblower) is guilty of treason.

 

[protectionist]

There is no impeachment until the Senate receives the articles.

I'm betting they will never see them.

 

[playtime]

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.

so, why wasn't any of that testimony used? seems odd that all you leftist fks in here have more information than the congress. interesting

vindman & hill both testified under oath... in front of congress.... stating exactly that ; you moron.

 

[Care4all]

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

Trump did that, when he called out the Biden boys.

YOU are hopeless!!!!

 

[playtime]

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?

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

 

[protectionist]

then why didn't donny stop aid to ukraine in 2017?

why didn't donny stop aid in 2018?

why did he stop aid after biden entered the race?

why wasn't anything mentioned about corruption in any phone calls?

why would donny ask for 'a favor' from a corrupt government?

yaaaaaaaaaaa...................... we know why.

1. He could have stopped aid to them as I noted in an OP of another thread, but he was asking for an INVESTIGATION. You don't do that AND cut aid.

2. The word corruption doesn't have to be spoken. Deeds are more important than words.

3. In international politics, all kinds of things happen with relation to corrupt or malicious governments, hopefully for the greater good (ex Saudi Arabia and Iran)

 

[playtime]

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.

In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center


EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

you're welcome.

All irrelevant when one (the whistleblower) is guilty of treason.

you are dismissed.

 

[protectionist]

abuse of power is impeachable & does not need to be a 'crime' in the classic sense. obstruction of congress, by refusing to comply with subpoenas to appear is also impeachable & is akin to obstruction of justice which is a crime in both political & societal arenas.

All irrelevant in the case of a political stunt/farce/hoax, masquerading as a laughingstock "impeachment."

 

[protectionist]

you are dismissed.

......I'LL decide when I am.

 

[playtime]

then why didn't donny stop aid to ukraine in 2017?

why didn't donny stop aid in 2018?

why did he stop aid after biden entered the race?

why wasn't anything mentioned about corruption in any phone calls?

why would donny ask for 'a favor' from a corrupt government?

yaaaaaaaaaaa...................... we know why.

1. He could have stopped aid to them as I noted in an OP of another thread, but he was asking for an INVESTIGATION. You don't do that AND cut aid.

2. The word corruption doesn't have to be spoken. Deeds are more important than words.

3. In international politics, all kinds of things happen with relation to corrupt or malicious governments, hopefully for the greater good (ex Saudi Arabia and Iran)

donny NEVER asked for an investigation prior to biden entering the race. he did NOT ask for any investigation into corruption in 2017, or 2018.

nice try, but your bullshit doesn't fly.

 

[playtime]

you are dismissed.

......I'LL decide when I am.