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

[Faun]

Of course I was upset. Republicans disenfranchised me by playing loose with the Constitution. But no turn in Washington ever goes undone. Now Democrats are playing the game that Republicans did.

They are but the democrats always seem to lose with shenanigans like this.

That's because rank & file Democrats don't typically give Democrats a pass for pulling such shenanigans.

LOL. Bullshit.

Umm.... Democrats wouldn't lose if they were brain-dead sycophants like the right. We lose because we don't get the support needed to win when pulling shenanigans.

IOW, you try to cheat, you're just not very good at it.

The parties have to have support from the rank & file to get away with it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Idiot...

§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.​

No foreign national made any contribution to trump. Trump does not handle his businesses anymore, his kids do.

If foreign nationals stayed at trump properties, they paid for a service, not a donation.

And, as I remember reading, the trump organization returned all the money that was gained from foreign nationals staying at his properties.

Contributions are anything of value. It does not have to be money. Services can also be a contribution in terms of that law. The service of providing an investigation into a political rival is certainly something of value to Impeached Trump's campaign.

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

 

[hadit]

They are but the democrats always seem to lose with shenanigans like this.

That's because rank & file Democrats don't typically give Democrats a pass for pulling such shenanigans.

LOL. Bullshit.

Umm.... Democrats wouldn't lose if they were brain-dead sycophants like the right. We lose because we don't get the support needed to win when pulling shenanigans.

IOW, you try to cheat, you're just not very good at it.

The parties have to have support from the rank & file to get away with it.

Who are you trying to fool? The democrats have had full support for shenanigans from their rank and file for years. They're just not very competent.

 

[easyt65]

The Senate has informed Pelosi that she has until 12 January to send the articles of Impeachment to the Senate or they will take action to dismiss the Impeachment.
* Pelosi has now set and continues to set the new US record for longest delay in sending Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.

On top of being on record for abusing her powers, on top of being on record as this being a completely BIASED / POLITICAL Impeachment based on how she and Democrats said Trump is such a threat to the US he forced their hand to rush to Impeachment - yet now delays, on top of proving Impeachment is about taking down the most successful President in 50 years / EVER - who they KNOW their candidates an not bead in 2020, the Democrats are now on record as being Iranian terrorist apologists, siding with Iranians and terrorists over the US President.

Way to go, Nancy!

 

[Faun]

That's because rank & file Democrats don't typically give Democrats a pass for pulling such shenanigans.

LOL. Bullshit.

Umm.... Democrats wouldn't lose if they were brain-dead sycophants like the right. We lose because we don't get the support needed to win when pulling shenanigans.

IOW, you try to cheat, you're just not very good at it.

The parties have to have support from the rank & file to get away with it.

Who are you trying to fool? The democrats have had full support for shenanigans from their rank and file for years. They're just not very competent.

LOLOL

Seems you're trying to boast that Republicans are better cheaters.

 

[hadit]

LOL. Bullshit.

Umm.... Democrats wouldn't lose if they were brain-dead sycophants like the right. We lose because we don't get the support needed to win when pulling shenanigans.

IOW, you try to cheat, you're just not very good at it.

The parties have to have support from the rank & file to get away with it.

Who are you trying to fool? The democrats have had full support for shenanigans from their rank and file for years. They're just not very competent.

LOLOL

Seems you're trying to boast that Republicans are better cheaters.

Nonsense. The democrats have made an art form out of cheating. In the end, though, does it really matter if one party is a seven on the cheating scale when the other is a six? I mean, you can argue about it if it makes you feel better, but in the end, both have people in them that cheat, lie, steal, and commit all manner of crimes to get what they want. Whichever party is in power at a particular time gets the most attention, so its shenanigans are more visible. And you don't lose because you're lousy cheaters. You lose because your message and the way you present it doesn't resonate with enough voters and your naked contempt for voters who don't support you turns away those who otherwise might be inclined to vote for you. Two strong examples come to mind: Romney's 40% quote and Hillary's Deplorables quote, combined with her neglect of large swaths of the country. I believe both were instrumental in their respective losses.

 

[Lakhota]

No foreign national made any contribution to trump. Trump does not handle his businesses anymore, his kids do.

If foreign nationals stayed at trump properties, they paid for a service, not a donation.

And, as I remember reading, the trump organization returned all the money that was gained from foreign nationals staying at his properties.

Contributions are anything of value. It does not have to be money. Services can also be a contribution in terms of that law. The service of providing an investigation into a political rival is certainly something of value to Impeached Trump's campaign.

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Any fair trial in the senate must include the recusal of the three Dem senators currently running for President - Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar - due to an obvious conflict of interest.

 

[WEATHER53]

Another day another do nothing

 

[ThisIsMe]

No foreign national made any contribution to trump. Trump does not handle his businesses anymore, his kids do.

If foreign nationals stayed at trump properties, they paid for a service, not a donation.

And, as I remember reading, the trump organization returned all the money that was gained from foreign nationals staying at his properties.

Contributions are anything of value. It does not have to be money. Services can also be a contribution in terms of that law. The service of providing an investigation into a political rival is certainly something of value to Impeached Trump's campaign.

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

 

[WEATHER53]

Contributions are anything of value. It does not have to be money. Services can also be a contribution in terms of that law. The service of providing an investigation into a political rival is certainly something of value to Impeached Trump's campaign.

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

 

[basquebromance]

Pelosi gets challenged as to why it was rushed through, and she said, ‘Rushed through? We’ve been working on this for two-and-a-half years.’ I think that gives more insight to her motivation. It was always about impeaching the president and it had nothing to do with the fact pattern

 

[Faun]

Umm.... Democrats wouldn't lose if they were brain-dead sycophants like the right. We lose because we don't get the support needed to win when pulling shenanigans.

IOW, you try to cheat, you're just not very good at it.

The parties have to have support from the rank & file to get away with it.

Who are you trying to fool? The democrats have had full support for shenanigans from their rank and file for years. They're just not very competent.

LOLOL

Seems you're trying to boast that Republicans are better cheaters.

Nonsense. The democrats have made an art form out of cheating. In the end, though, does it really matter if one party is a seven on the cheating scale when the other is a six? I mean, you can argue about it if it makes you feel better, but in the end, both have people in them that cheat, lie, steal, and commit all manner of crimes to get what they want. Whichever party is in power at a particular time gets the most attention, so its shenanigans are more visible. And you don't lose because you're lousy cheaters. You lose because your message and the way you present it doesn't resonate with enough voters and your naked contempt for voters who don't support you turns away those who otherwise might be inclined to vote for you. Two strong examples come to mind: Romney's 40% quote and Hillary's Deplorables quote, combined with her neglect of large swaths of the country. I believe both were instrumental in their respective losses.

LOL

You're talking out of every side of your mouth at once. You're claiming that Democrats made an art form of cheating while at the same time, saying they're not good at it.

 

[hadit]

IOW, you try to cheat, you're just not very good at it.

The parties have to have support from the rank & file to get away with it.

Who are you trying to fool? The democrats have had full support for shenanigans from their rank and file for years. They're just not very competent.

LOLOL

Seems you're trying to boast that Republicans are better cheaters.

Nonsense. The democrats have made an art form out of cheating. In the end, though, does it really matter if one party is a seven on the cheating scale when the other is a six? I mean, you can argue about it if it makes you feel better, but in the end, both have people in them that cheat, lie, steal, and commit all manner of crimes to get what they want. Whichever party is in power at a particular time gets the most attention, so its shenanigans are more visible. And you don't lose because you're lousy cheaters. You lose because your message and the way you present it doesn't resonate with enough voters and your naked contempt for voters who don't support you turns away those who otherwise might be inclined to vote for you. Two strong examples come to mind: Romney's 40% quote and Hillary's Deplorables quote, combined with her neglect of large swaths of the country. I believe both were instrumental in their respective losses.

LOL

You're talking out of every side of your mouth at once. You're claiming that Democrats made an art form of cheating while at the same time, saying they're not good at it.

The poor dears keeping coming up with ways to cheat and keep losing anyway.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Contributions are anything of value. It does not have to be money. Services can also be a contribution in terms of that law. The service of providing an investigation into a political rival is certainly something of value to Impeached Trump's campaign.

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

 

[Nostra]

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

It’s more of demanding an addition to rather than just extension
Nancy wants the Senate to bring in the conviction.

Oh for sure. The dems will do what they can to make sure this ends in conviction, which is why I've said all along, a fair trial is impossible. There is no way trump gets a fair shake in this.

What is not or would not be fair?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

The Senate does not investigate, it runs a trial on the evidence the House has (or in this case, the lack of evidence).

The House should have sent Bolton a subpoena if they wanted to hear from him.

Semantic nonsense. There is no such rule that says there cannot be new testimony.
There's not a thing wrong with hearing from witnesses who were previously unwilling or otherwise unavailable to testify.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I agree, but nobody has yet proven trump did it for personal gain, or to help his campaign.

Show me where anyone has proven that. All we have is that trump asked zelensky to look into the firing of the prosecutor. People are trying to use that and say he did it to help his campaign, but I've yet to see anyone actually show where trump even hints at his doing it for personal reasons.

There was no other reason. Plus he also said China should also look into Biden. Plus he made a campaign ad about Biden getting Shokin fired. Plus, his own personal attorney was digging into it. Clearly, he viewed that incident with Biden as political dirt.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

You could be right. I can admit that, however, you shouldnt impeach a president based on "I think this is why". You should have proof.

I agree. Let's let Bolton and others share their proof.

I'm all for that. Let's see the truth, what I am not for is the house trying to use the Senate as an extension of its investigation.

New testimony in the Senate trial has nothing at all to do with anything the House has already done. It would not be an extension of anything. Bolton just offered to testify.

Well, but in actuality it is. Pelosi is holding the articles trying to get witnesses in the senate. In effect, she is wanting to use the Senate to continue where they left off in the house.

She couldn't get those witnesses in the house hearings, but she sees a way of getting them in the senate by stalling the process.

Bolton is the exception, but the rest of the witnesses she wants are not