Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, none of that is true, just imagined in your fantasy land.

That's why the Clinton impeachment was outvoted 200-5 by Republicans and Trump's impeachment was outvoted 200-5 by Democrats.

Clinton deserved censure for his blowjob in the oval office he lied about. Trump deserves to have his head on a pike and bleed from the neck to feed the Tree of Liberty.

That's some huge nationalistic tendencies there. I thought you guys were against borders and flags?

Wtf.

 

[Half-Life]

That's some huge nationalistic tendencies there. I thought you guys were against borders and flags?

Wtf.

If you're not an anarchist, I apologize. A lot of them exist on the left today. Strangely, despite being in favor of no government, no borders, and no flags, they still want social security and medicaid, which are government programs, which you can't have with no government.

 

[Elixir]

The vote is in. No witnesses. Almost there.

 

[Patooka]

I guess it's a good thing everybody pinky-sweared to be impartial for these proceedings. These should be the easiest election ads to make in history come November.

 

[ZiprHead]

From respected American historian Professor Richard Bernstein

Dear Professor Dershowitz,

In the spring of 1978, I was a student in your class on professional responsibility at the Harvard Law School. I took this course because of what then was your sterling reputation as a defender of the rights of criminal suspects and defendants under the U.S. Bill of Rights. I ended the semester sadly disillusioned by you and with a fund of knowledge about how not to teach.

Since that time, your course was one of only two that I regretted taking in law school. And, in recent years, your advocacy and arguments have repeatedly left me aghast at your willingness to channel your advocacy in the direction of your clients' selfish interests even when you run head-on into the sound and wise principles of the Constitution and the law.

I never thought that you would stoop so low as to embrace the pseudo-monarchical conception of the presidency treasured by President No. 45 and by those who enable him and do his bidding. Today, sad to say, those of us who are constitutional historians, who remember Watergate, and who know that a president of the United States is not a king of any kind are consumed with disgust, contempt, and revulsion by your embrace of the idea that a president can define the national interest by reference to his desire to win re-election, and that nothing but a violation of criminal law resulting in indictable felony can be an impeachable offense.

You disgrace the legal profession, you disgrace this country, and you disgrace yourself by what you are saying in seeking to argue that No. 45 cannot be impeached except for an indictable felony.

You leave all of us who spent time in classrooms with you heartily ashamed that we ever did that. This former student calls you out for your shamelessness and your intellectual dishonesty.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2544296899030540&id=1487095678084006

 

[Half-Life]

From respected American historian Professor Richard Bernstein

Dear Professor Dershowitz,

In the spring of 1978, I was a student in your class on professional responsibility at the Harvard Law School. I took this course because of what then was your sterling reputation as a defender of the rights of criminal suspects and defendants under the U.S. Bill of Rights. I ended the semester sadly disillusioned by you and with a fund of knowledge about how not to teach.

Since that time, your course was one of only two that I regretted taking in law school. And, in recent years, your advocacy and arguments have repeatedly left me aghast at your willingness to channel your advocacy in the direction of your clients' selfish interests even when you run head-on into the sound and wise principles of the Constitution and the law.

I never thought that you would stoop so low as to embrace the pseudo-monarchical conception of the presidency treasured by President No. 45 and by those who enable him and do his bidding. Today, sad to say, those of us who are constitutional historians, who remember Watergate, and who know that a president of the United States is not a king of any kind are consumed with disgust, contempt, and revulsion by your embrace of the idea that a president can define the national interest by reference to his desire to win re-election, and that nothing but a violation of criminal law resulting in indictable felony can be an impeachable offense.

You disgrace the legal profession, you disgrace this country, and you disgrace yourself by what you are saying in seeking to argue that No. 45 cannot be impeached except for an indictable felony.

You leave all of us who spent time in classrooms with you heartily ashamed that we ever did that. This former student calls you out for your shamelessness and your intellectual dishonesty.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=2544296899030540&id=1487095678084006

Newt Gingrich destroys "monarchy" argument:

See guys, this is what happens when you only listen to the Dems side. You don't think things through clearly.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY5huU_SJok[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Trausti]

The vote is in. No witnesses. Almost there.

View attachment 25906

Yeah, guilty of a non-crime. The next impeachment should be about the two scoops of ice cream. Drumpf is going down.

 

[Patooka]

]Blah blah quoting fox news without any self-awareness whilst trying to pontificate about facts over feelings blah blah blah
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY5huU_SJok[/YOUTUBE]

I could stomach only 2 minutes of that bullshit so you might want to summarize what the argument was that destroyed the "Trump wants to be king" argument. All I saw was:

1)"but Obama did it!". No he didn't. Merrick Garland is proof of that. The quote that was used (out of context) specifically stated that Obama would only consider it if congress was deadlocked. Like, you know, if you had a partisan cunt as Senate Majority Leader who prides himself on getting nothing accomplished including bispartisan support on gun reform and opiod regulation. And finally what Obama did in the fevered minds of conservatives doesn't give Trump carte blanche on his actions.
2) A what if/let's say/let's pretend from a partisan fuckwit who lost an argument against Michael Moore of all fucking people and Newt has stated on record he cares more about peoples feelings than facts. So fuck his opinion.
3)A call for everyone to come together and work together? Get fucked - fool me once etc. Name one time Trump has acted in a cooperative manner.

Don't fucking bother. You can't. Which is a trait of a tyrannical monarch FYI. So please summarize the last seven minutes of that puff piece from state media that exonerates Trump from wanting to be King

The icing on the cake was when Laura Ingrahm implied Michael Steele is a Democrat. I must say I got a giggle from that.

 

[Half-Life]

Yes, the Democrats claimed in the House they had enough evidence to take it to trial. They should have never taken it to trial if they didn't have enough evidence yet. You don't send it to the Senate ready for trial and then say, "Wait! Hold on! We need more witnesses!" That's not how trials work. Dems shot themselves in the foot once again.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The traitor Republicans CAN'T call Bolton to the stand because Trump will try to block them. If they did that, it would prove the second article. Their treason against democracy has removed power from Congress and given privileges to the President he should not have. No conservative has standing anymore to talk politics, except Trump's critics.

Let's think about this logically for a minute. Let's imagine Bernie Sanders did this exact same thing. Do you think all the Bernie Bros. would be screaming for Bernie's impeachment?

your fantasies where the opposition is your mirror equal are not logical.

Of course not. They would most likely be saying stuff like, "Well, even if he did do it, it's not impeachable. He's just trying to investigate corruption. Bernie is a man of the people. Even if it was kind of shady, we shouldn't get rid of the man from office. We love all his policies. His policies are more important than his actions. Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!"

arguments you would reject.
Funny thing is, there are people in the Senate who ARE behaving differently for this impeachment than they did fir Clinton's.
And not just voting differently, but completely reversing their stand on the process.
And they are not Democrats.

You guys know this is 100% true.

nope.

Face it, if you already hate Trump with the fury of a thousand suns, of course you're gonna demand he's impeached.

we got that he's impeached.
What we knew we could not get is a fair trial.

And if you are a Trump supporter, you will say he shouldn't be impeached.

too bad, then, he has neen.

That's why the Clinton impeachment was outvoted 200-5 by Republicans and Trump's impeachment was outvoted 200-5 by Democrats.

yeah, keep telling yourself the two indictments are comparable, another lie in a string of them.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, the Democrats claimed in the House they had enough evidence to take it to trial. They should have never taken it to trial if they didn't have enough evidence yet. You don't send it to the Senate ready for trial and then say, "Wait! Hold on! We need more witnesses!" That's not how trials work. Dems shot themselves in the foot once again.

actually, that's exactly how it works. That's why people testify in court, even after the DA has collected enough evidence that he is convinced of guilt.
And the fact that Trump obstructed testimony would mean more evidence when he obstructed Senate testimony.

 

[Half-Life]

]Blah blah quoting fox news without any self-awareness whilst trying to pontificate about facts over feelings blah blah blah
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY5huU_SJok[/YOUTUBE]

I could stomach only 2 minutes of that bullshit so you might want to summarize what the argument was that destroyed the "Trump wants to be king" argument. All I saw was:

1)"but Obama did it!". No he didn't. Merrick Garland is proof of that. The quote that was used (out of context) specifically stated that Obama would only consider it if congress was deadlocked. Like, you know, if you had a partisan cunt as Senate Majority Leader who prides himself on getting nothing accomplished including bispartisan support on gun reform and opiod regulation. And finally what Obama did in the fevered minds of conservatives doesn't give Trump carte blanche on his actions.
2) A what if/let's say/let's pretend from a partisan fuckwit who lost an argument against Michael Moore of all fucking people and Newt has stated on record he cares more about peoples feelings than facts. So fuck his opinion.
3)A call for everyone to come together and work together? Get fucked - fool me once etc. Name one time Trump has acted in a cooperative manner.

Don't fucking bother. You can't. Which is a trait of a tyrannical monarch FYI. So please summarize the last seven minutes of that puff piece from state media that exonerates Trump from wanting to the State.

The icing on th cake was when Laura Ingrahm implied Michael Steele is a Democrat. I must say I got a giggle from that.

Since you didn't watch the vwhole video, I will tell you. They showed Schiff using a made up conversation between Trump and Putin to prove Trump's guilt. Yes, a made-up hypothetical convo that never happened was trying to be used by Schiff as proof Trump colluded.

Then they showed hysterical Dems on MSNBC saying, "Trump's gonna suspend elections in California because he's gonna say illegals are voting there! He's gonna shut down all polling stations!" They are already getting so deranged about things Trump hasn't done, isn't doing, and will never do. Newt was right when he said, "Undecided voters see deranged nonsense like this and swing over to Trump."

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is true. Trump has a spine and big brass balls.

bullshit.
He's a lifetime coward. He lacks the balls to fire people face-to-face, he takes no responsibility for his failures or mistakes, he's afraid to testify, and he cannot deal with an opponent from a position of equality. He has to belittle and bully.

 

[Half-Life]

Yes, the Democrats claimed in the House they had enough evidence to take it to trial. They should have never taken it to trial if they didn't have enough evidence yet. You don't send it to the Senate ready for trial and then say, "Wait! Hold on! We need more witnesses!" That's not how trials work. Dems shot themselves in the foot once again.

actually, that's exactly how it works. That's why people testify in court, even after the DA has collected enough evidence that he is convinced of guilt.
And the fact that Trump obstructed testimony would mean more evidence when he obstructed Senate testimony.

That's not how it works, Keith. You gather witnesses and evidence BEFORE the trial. You don't wait until the trial has started before saying, "Wait! Wait!" The judge will roll their eyes and ask, "Why'd you say you were ready for trial in the first place?"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since you didn't watch the vwhole video, I will tell you. They showed Schiff using a made up conversation between Trump and Putin to prove Trump's guilt. Yes, a made-up hypothetical convo that never happened was trying to be used by Schiff as proof Trump colluded.

And this is bad, you think?
So, every time Trump invents nameless, faceless people, and their support, that's bad, too, right?
Any 'people are saying' or 'someone told me' or 'some government workers told me they support the shutdown...'
If fictional conversations between real people are bad, then fictional people doing fictional things should be worse, right?
How many Muslims dancing in the street for 9-11?
How many times did Trump volunteer at Ground Zero?

If you champion truth, you should definitely not support the man who used an assumed name to call in 'news items' about himself.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes, the Democrats claimed in the House they had enough evidence to take it to trial. They should have never taken it to trial if they didn't have enough evidence yet. You don't send it to the Senate ready for trial and then say, "Wait! Hold on! We need more witnesses!" That's not how trials work. Dems shot themselves in the foot once again.

actually, that's exactly how it works. That's why people testify in court, even after the DA has collected enough evidence that he is convinced of guilt.
And the fact that Trump obstructed testimony would mean more evidence when he obstructed Senate testimony.

That's not how it works, Keith. You gather witnesses and evidence BEFORE the trial. You don't want until the trial has started before saying, "Wait! Wait!" The judge will roll their eyes and ask, "Why'd you say you were ready for trial in the first place?"

They never said 'wait, wait.' They had testimony from18 people.
But not from the people Trump ordered as part of his obstruction.

The Trump team simultaneous claimed there was not enough evidence, and there was plenty of evidence. That there was no direct witness testimony, which was because of the obstruction.

 

[Half-Life]

That's not how it works, Keith. You gather witnesses and evidence BEFORE the trial. You don't want until the trial has started before saying, "Wait! Wait!" The judge will roll their eyes and ask, "Why'd you say you were ready for trial in the first place?"

They never said 'wait, wait.' They had testimony from18 people.
But not from the people Trump ordered as part of his obstruction.

The Trump team simultaneous claimed there was not enough evidence, and there was plenty of evidence. That there was no direct witness testimony, which was because of the obstruction.

You're saying people listened to Trump to obstruct even on threat of jail time?

 

[Elixir]

That's not how it works, Keith. You gather witnesses and evidence BEFORE the trial. You don't want until the trial has started before saying, "Wait! Wait!" The judge will roll their eyes and ask, "Why'd you say you were ready for trial in the first place?"

They never said 'wait, wait.' They had testimony from18 people.
But not from the people Trump ordered as part of his obstruction.

The Trump team simultaneous claimed there was not enough evidence, and there was plenty of evidence. That there was no direct witness testimony, which was because of the obstruction.

Yup. I can only shake my head - if the consequences of Republican Senators cramming this shitburger down the throats of a citizenry that is overwhelmingly (75%) opposed to it are not as bad the consequences of airing the truth, it's hard to imagine how bad the truth really is for them.

Actually, it's scary. They will be desperate to win and emboldened to cheat in the coming elections. Because if they lose, it could make the number of people sent to jail in the Nixon case pale by comparison. I think it goes beyond simply trying to keep their jobs.

There is about a 100% chance that more damning facts will be coming out between now and election day (for instance WH counsel is probably a fact witness), but there must be things that Republicans are betting they can keep secret, at least until then.

 

[Half-Life]

That's not how it works, Keith. You gather witnesses and evidence BEFORE the trial. You don't want until the trial has started before saying, "Wait! Wait!" The judge will roll their eyes and ask, "Why'd you say you were ready for trial in the first place?"

They never said 'wait, wait.' They had testimony from18 people.
But not from the people Trump ordered as part of his obstruction.

The Trump team simultaneous claimed there was not enough evidence, and there was plenty of evidence. That there was no direct witness testimony, which was because of the obstruction.

Yup. I can only shake my head - if the consequences of Republican Senators cramming this shitburger down the throats of a citizenry that is overwhelmingly (75%) opposed to it are not as bad the consequences of airing the truth, it's hard to imagine how bad the truth really is for them.

Actually, it's scary. They will be desperate to win and emboldened to cheat in the coming elections. Because if they lose, it could make the number of people sent to jail in the Nixon case pale by comparison. I think it goes beyond simply trying to keep their jobs.

There is about a 100% chance that more shit will be coming out between now and election day (for instance WH counsel is probably a fact witness), but there must be things that Republicans are betting they can keep secret, at least until then.

No one is seeing any jail. There will be no cheating. If Bernie does win the Dem nomination, it's over for him. Trump is gonna go on stage and say, "Commie Sanders wants to turn America into Russia. He went there on vacation and loved it. Who's the real Russian collusion guy?" Bernie's gonna get destroyed by Trump.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, the Democrats claimed in the House they had enough evidence to take it to trial. They should have never taken it to trial if they didn't have enough evidence yet. You don't send it to the Senate ready for trial and then say, "Wait! Hold on! We need more witnesses!" That's not how trials work. Dems shot themselves in the foot once again.

Wut, they don't call witnesses at trials? Tell us how it works then, Perry Mason.