Will Speaker Pelosi withhold articles of impeachment from Senate until guaranteed a fair trial?

[Faun]

Even if true - treason outweighs blowjobs.

The "Articles" are "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" idiot.
1. Not a crime or impeachable.
2. Will be thrown out by Roberts because the USSC already decided that Trump does have the right to take issues to court

^^^ another rightard who never heard of the Graham Rule.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” ~ Lindsey Graham R-SC, 1.16.1999​

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Please cite which actual law is referenced in the articles of impeachment.

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or​

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.​

​

 

[bripat9643]

The "Articles" are "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" idiot.
1. Not a crime or impeachable.
2. Will be thrown out by Roberts because the USSC already decided that Trump does have the right to take issues to court

^^^ another rightard who never heard of the Graham Rule.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” ~ Lindsey Graham R-SC, 1.16.1999​

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Please cite which actual law is referenced in the articles of impeachment.

§30121 Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or​

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
​

Trump isn't accused of breaking that law, moron.

 

[Faun]

Notice how Faun all over Itself always responds with an LOL
The most childish, vacuous “response”
possible but entirely anticipated from * idiot

You idiots crack me up. What can I say?

 

[kyzr]

The "Articles" are "Abuse of Power" and "Obstruction of Congress" idiot.
1. Not a crime or impeachable.
2. Will be thrown out by Roberts because the USSC already decided that Trump does have the right to take issues to court

^^^ another rightard who never heard of the Graham Rule.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” ~ Lindsey Graham R-SC, 1.16.1999​

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Graham is one senator, so happy to see you have so much respect for one GOP senator's opinion.

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

"No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit."

LOL

You brain-dead cultists are a riot.

Now compare your op/ed with reality...

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."​

Folks like Mitch "I am not an impartial juror" McConnell will be in violation of that oath the moment they take it.

We all saw the "facts" in the impeachment case already when Schiff held his kangaroo court and broke House rules doing it. The GOP did not get their day to call witnesses as they should have among other House rules broken. There were 2nd hand witnesses allowed in the House, which are not allowed in the senate, among other outrages.
I could swear that during the trial "I would do impartial justice "according to the Constitution" so help me God."
Maybe you don't read the other person's posts, but try again, and read the entire post, here it is again:

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

 

[edward37]

Trumps 13 commandments
Once you have their money... you never give it back. "
2 The best deal is the one that brings the most profit.
2 Money is everything.
3 Never spend more for an acquisition than you have to. "
5 Always exaggerate your estimates.
6 Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity. "
7 Keep your ears open. "
8 Small print leads to large risk.
9 Opportunity plus instinct equals profit.
10 Greed is eternal. "
13 Anything worth doing is worth doing for money.

Which ones aren't true?

If you ever followed Star Trek it was what the low life Ferenghi believed in

You base your ideas on Star Trek? Really?

Gave me great insight into the republican mind

I think I've figured out your problem. You rely on fantasy to inform your world view.

Hadit You support a guy whose main schtick is fantasy

 

[Faun]

^^^ another rightard who never heard of the Graham Rule.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” ~ Lindsey Graham R-SC, 1.16.1999​

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Graham is one senator, so happy to see you have so much respect for one GOP senator's opinion.

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

"No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit."

LOL

You brain-dead cultists are a riot.

Now compare your op/ed with reality...

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."​

Folks like Mitch "I am not an impartial juror" McConnell will be in violation of that oath the moment they take it.

So will approximately 88.67% of the Senators that take it.Or are you going to pretend all but a handful of democrats don't already know how they're going to vote?

Party is irrelevant. Any Senators who has declared they will not be impartial will be violating that oath.

 

[bripat9643]

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Graham is one senator, so happy to see you have so much respect for one GOP senator's opinion.

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

"No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit."

LOL

You brain-dead cultists are a riot.

Now compare your op/ed with reality...

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."​

Folks like Mitch "I am not an impartial juror" McConnell will be in violation of that oath the moment they take it.

So will approximately 88.67% of the Senators that take it.Or are you going to pretend all but a handful of democrats don't already know how they're going to vote?

Party is irrelevant. Any Senators who has declared they will not be impartial will be violating that oath.

Prove they violated it, asshole.

 

[Faun]

^^^ another rightard who never heard of the Graham Rule.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.” ~ Lindsey Graham R-SC, 1.16.1999​

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Graham is one senator, so happy to see you have so much respect for one GOP senator's opinion.

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

"No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit."

LOL

You brain-dead cultists are a riot.

Now compare your op/ed with reality...

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."​

Folks like Mitch "I am not an impartial juror" McConnell will be in violation of that oath the moment they take it.

We all saw the "facts" in the impeachment case already when Schiff held his kangaroo court and broke House rules doing it. The GOP did not get their day to call witnesses as they should have among other House rules broken. There were 2nd hand witnesses allowed in the House, which are not allowed in the senate, among other outrages.
I could swear that during the trial "I would do impartial justice "according to the Constitution" so help me God."
Maybe you don't read the other person's posts, but try again, and read the entire post, here it is again:

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

Did you think repeating your op/ed would turn it into real news?

 

[hadit]

Which ones aren't true?

If you ever followed Star Trek it was what the low life Ferenghi believed in

You base your ideas on Star Trek? Really?

Gave me great insight into the republican mind

I think I've figured out your problem. You rely on fantasy to inform your world view.

Hadit You support a guy whose main schtick is fantasy

My world view, however, is based on reality.

 

[hadit]

The Graham Rule isn't "Law" is it leftard, anymore than the partisan arguments from democrats supporting Clinton were.

The point still stands that the "Articles" against Trump are total bullshit, and will be easily defeated in the senate if not put up to a dismissal vote by Roberts first.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, that's why I said it's the Graham "Rule" and not the Graham "Law."

And no, they are not total bullshit. Impeached Trump did break the law and got his MAGI ass impeached for it.

And since Republicans already announced even before the trial begins that they're going to acquit him, the ones who said that will now be violating the oath they're about to take.

Graham is one senator, so happy to see you have so much respect for one GOP senator's opinion.

What "laws" did Trump break as defined in the articles of impeachment? How about specific references please?

Hint: Article-2 is dead since the USSC already took the case of Trump vs House subpoena for his tax records. So article-2 is already dead. Article 1 isn't as dead, but it's not impeachable.
Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit. From the article:
"If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void."

"No one is violating any oath when they already know that the articles are bullshit."

LOL

You brain-dead cultists are a riot.

Now compare your op/ed with reality...

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."​

Folks like Mitch "I am not an impartial juror" McConnell will be in violation of that oath the moment they take it.

So will approximately 88.67% of the Senators that take it.Or are you going to pretend all but a handful of democrats don't already know how they're going to vote?

Party is irrelevant. Any Senators who has declared they will not be impartial will be violating that oath.

We already know how most of the democrats will vote. They are not impartial.

 

[edward37]

If you ever followed Star Trek it was what the low life Ferenghi believed in

You base your ideas on Star Trek? Really?

Gave me great insight into the republican mind

I think I've figured out your problem. You rely on fantasy to inform your world view.

Hadit You support a guy whose main schtick is fantasy

My world view, however, is based on reality.

It might very well be but supporting this idiot in our WH doesn't imo speak well of your world view

 

[WEATHER53]

Too many freaking participation trophies given out to the point that Dems don’t know what constitutes the completion of an activity.

 

[basquebromance]

Pelosi is not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she's too busy praying for Trump!

 

[WEATHER53]

Pelosi is not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she's too busy praying for Trump!

Lord bless her. I’m liking her method of killing it.

 

[bripat9643]

You base your ideas on Star Trek? Really?

Gave me great insight into the republican mind

I think I've figured out your problem. You rely on fantasy to inform your world view.

Hadit You support a guy whose main schtick is fantasy

My world view, however, is based on reality.

It might very well be but supporting this idiot in our WH doesn't imo speak well of your world view

It speaks very highly of his world view. Voting for the criminal Hillary shows that you're a moron and an unprincipled douchebag.

 

[hadit]

You base your ideas on Star Trek? Really?

Gave me great insight into the republican mind

I think I've figured out your problem. You rely on fantasy to inform your world view.

Hadit You support a guy whose main schtick is fantasy

My world view, however, is based on reality.

It might very well be but supporting this idiot in our WH doesn't imo speak well of your world view

He's not someone I'd enjoy living with or working for, but he's been making the establishment nervous, keeping the economy going and not getting us into any new wars. That's better than most of the recent presidents. He's a hard man for a hard job. Could you imagine the effete Obama challenging the FBI or Congress?

 

[edward37]

Pelosi is not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate because she's too busy praying for Trump!

Watch how fast the prayers stop if Dems capture the Senate too

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Gave me great insight into the republican mind

I think I've figured out your problem. You rely on fantasy to inform your world view.

Hadit You support a guy whose main schtick is fantasy

My world view, however, is based on reality.

It might very well be but supporting this idiot in our WH doesn't imo speak well of your world view

It speaks very highly of his world view. Voting for the criminal Hillary shows that you're a moron and an unprincipled douchebag.

And a looooser.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lakhota]

Speaker Pelosi is my hero!

 

[hadit]

Speaker Pelosi is my hero!

You poor thing.