Name:	PTClakefan -	Reply
Subject:	Dems' Conundrum
Date:	12/20/2019 1:44:51 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosis-problem-dems-own-witness-says-trump-not-truly-impeached-unless-articles-go-to-senate

I had posed this very question on a seperate thread earlier this week.  It looks like we now have an answer.  I am not sure what Pelosi's thought process is here, but it looks to me as though it will surely backfire.  She has no leverage and no choice but to kick it to the Senate where it may well be dismissed outright.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Dems' Conundrum
Date:	12/20/2019 2:27:45 PM (updated 12/20/2019 3:41:03 PM)

Rock...meet hard place.  Not only is this increasingly unpopular but it's backfiring.  To be an actual impeachment the articles have to be sent to the Senate for the trial.  Sort of like a prosecutor preparing an indictment and never filing the paperwork.  Said perp is not indicted until actually indicted.  So no impeachment until she sends to the Senate......and a quick acquittal if she does.  Their lack of foresight and rational thinking is a wonder to behold.  They don't want Trump to take his acquittal into the 2020 election cycle as they know full well he will. 

I can only hear him saying, "The House on purely partisan lines, cause you know the vote against impeachment was bipartisan, voted to impeach me.  And it was so bad they were afraid to send it to the Senate.  And we all know why don't we?  Cause the case was so shoddy, so fake, so terrible that the Senate voted to acquit in a bipartisan way.  It was all a lie, it was all fake, I was acquitted after a 30-minute trial.  They tried to take away your votes in 2016 because they think of you as a bunch of deplorable racists. So send them a message in 2020.  Vote Trump!  Vote GOP in every race up and down the ticket!  AND KEEP AMERICA GREAT!!!" 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM when you and all the other Trumpistas
Date:	12/20/2019 4:06:57 PM (updated 12/20/2019 4:18:11 PM)

who think the president is as innocent as the driven snow can look yourselves in the mirror and say honestly and with a straight face " If the same evidence for the same actions had been produced against President Barack Obama or President Hillary Clinton I would just as strongly oppose his or her removal from office.'' your opinions vis a vis impeachment will be worthy of serious consideration.  Until then it is no more than hot air.

And, yes I honestly believe if it were Obama or Clinton in the same conundrum I would still favor removal because it is a dispicable and unacceptable act regardless of whether a (D) or (R) follows the name.

Is it all political?  Most certainly, but only because it has been made that way by the extreme partisanship which is sadly now standard practice for both sides.  Most people think Trump is a jerk, a liar and moral dwarf who should be voted out of office but not removed by a partisan procedure. Trump rants about the 63 million citizens who are having their vote taken away by the process but he gives not one dime for the opinion of the 73 million who voted for someone else! Their opinion will be heard and counted in November 2020!

Name:	krtracker -	Reply
Subject:	MM when you and all the other Trumpistas
Date:	12/20/2019 4:40:02 PM

hey architect, your memory is lapsing.  maybe you just dont want to remeber the small problem with hillary the dip stick and all the classified emails that she deleted from her home server. the lies of the bengazi incident with seal team members being killed.  thanks to the fantastic , lying  FBI head named Comey she skated out of a serious charges. I think your favorite buddy OBAMA TURD was behind that also. Democraps have short memories with that and dont want to talk about it.

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	Dems' Conundrum
Date:	12/20/2019 8:29:22 PM

Queen Nan wants assurances of a "fair & impartial trial in the Senate '; #4%**@; guess thats what happened in the HOUSE ?

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	MM when you and all the other Trumpistas
Date:	12/21/2019 8:29:57 AM

Archie,

In your spare time, may I suggest you peruse the Federal Rules of Evidence before ever utilizing the term "evidence" as it pertains to this sham.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	CRD I suggest in your spare time you
Date:	12/21/2019 11:05:34 AM (updated 12/21/2019 11:22:23 AM)

read the United States Constitution which establishes the ONLY ''rules'' for impeachment that are applicable to the current question.  Of course if Dear Leader was really interested in truth he would allow the application of those ''rules of evidence'' to be in full effect there would be even more irrefutable evidence of his ''high crimes and misdemenors'' than is already public!  Why is he hiding something that is not there to hide?

Now, are you ready to state for the record that you would feel the same way if it were Obama, Hillary or any other non-Republican in the same ''sham'' backed by the same evidence?  Your opinion on the current ''sham'' can certainly be freely expressed, but it will be worthy of serious consideration only when you can so state but not before!  Hypocrisy is currently as big a danger to the Republic as is the extreme and unyielding partianship based on loyalty to a party or ideology rather than loyalty to the nation!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Dems' Conundrum
Date:	12/21/2019 12:26:07 PM

Isn't that the truth.  It's laughable.  I wonder if they really believe this BS?  

If she doesn't send the articles to the Senate, she is screwed.  If she does send them, she's screwed because they will acquit.  

So once again, they have wasted time and taxpayers money for what?  Nothing.

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Dems' Conundrum
Date:	12/21/2019 12:34:12 PM

At least she will get a good screwing!!!!!!!!!!!1

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	As we are
Date:	12/21/2019 11:19:06 PM

"We see things not as THEY are;

We see things as WE are."

        - Anais Nin

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	CRD I suggest in your spare time you
Date:	12/22/2019 7:28:25 AM

Archie, I look at it this way.  During the holiday season lets create an analogy.  The Constitution is like a recipe, the Rules of Evidence are the ingredients.  Without ingredients obviously, the recipe is nice to have in your kitchen ready to reference when needed, but in reality, it does not really lead to an end product.  YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT IN FRONT OF YOU.  No fact witnesses except Sondland, who verified Trump's position.  Hearsay evidence that is addressed in Rule 802, Article VIII of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  

Now the question as to whether I would support the same if the President had a D beside their name, if evidence failed to show a high CRIME and Misdemeanor, then yes.  I currently am trying to wrap my hands around the fact that unverified evidence was provided to a FISA court in order to spy on a US citizen and presidential campaign and I hear nothing but crickets from you guys and the media.  But you want me to get my panties in a wad over Trump requesting that a foreign government investigate its own corruption before receiving my hard earned tax dollars?  Sorry Arch, you guys have tipped over the edge

Name:	johndoe -	Reply
Subject:	CRD I suggest in your spare time you
Date:	12/22/2019 10:45:16 AM

"Archie, I look at it this way in the most self-serving way I can possibly imagine, no matter how far-fetched and pathetically wrong that might be."

There. Fixed it for you.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	CRD I suggest in your spare time you
Date:	12/22/2019 3:50:18 PM

You and your party have become irrelevant Doe.  That is what angers you the most.  How does it feel?  3 years of this and what does your party have to show its voters and supporters?  A partisan impeachment that will result in a Senate acquittal?    A Mueller report that showed nothing?  A Horowitz report that shed light on what an inept and corrupt president Obama was?  You should be screaming from the rafters about what your party leadership has dragged YOU through.  Meanwhile, the rest of us get up, drink our coffee, take our kids to school, check our portfolios, enjoy this economy and President who has accomplished more for this country with the wolves at his heals than any recent President (including Republican).  Got any red line corrections for me?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry, but I don't believe you for a second
Date:	12/23/2019 8:50:12 AM

But I will say this, I would oppose impeachment of Obama for these two articles.  But the GOP didn't impeach him for doing on multiple occasions what Trump has done vis-a-vis executive privilege.  And the GOP didn't impeach Biden for his quid pro quo with Ukraine to protect his son's honey pot.  Because we understand what the Constitution and the Framers meant by impeachment.  These articles are a complete and utter joke and as the liberal law professor Jonathon Turley rightly pointed out, every past and future president could be impeached.

So this isn't about Trump being "white as snow", this is about a sham inquiry in the House, bipartisan opposition to impeachment and the coming bipartisan acquital.  Be ready Archie, because Trump is going to be barnstorming the country shouting his vindication to thunderous applause.  And fair minded Independents and Democrats will vote for him as will a decent percentage of blacks and Hispanics.  This is an epic fail on every count and is an inestimable in-kind donation to the Trump 2020 campaign.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	again I agree with Hound's recent analysis
Date:	12/23/2019 2:13:38 PM (updated 12/23/2019 2:15:09 PM)

MM you are hopeless.  You and your minions are also delusional.  If you or I were brought up before a jury in a county courthouse with the same degree and quality of evidence as has been presented against Trump we would be convicted after 30 minutes of deliberation.  You know it as well as I do!

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	again I agree with Hound's recent analysis
Date:	12/25/2019 6:05:52 AM

Maybe not Archie.  In your hypothetical I would be allowed to call my own witnesses, my defense counsel would be able to question prosecuting witnesses and the trial would be open for all to see.  Big difference.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Nope
Date:	12/25/2019 1:12:55 PM

But if the jury suffered from TDS there would be no need for facts......they would convict regardless of the truth.  But Archie, you are lying about Obama and everyone knows it.  

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Dems' Conundrum
Date:	12/26/2019 8:54:40 AM (updated 12/26/2019 8:58:49 AM)

OH God my eyes -   someone make it stop - please pass the eyebleach.