Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[ZiprHead]

Can Vindman sue for wrongful termination?

I think Yevgeny Vindman most certainly should. There's no possible legal justification for firing a person in retaliation for their sibling's misconduct. That is some authoritarian bullshit.

To clarify, though, this would go nowhere. Soldiers don't usually get sue their employers in civil court,..

I think Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch could sue so hard, she could take over Mar A Lago.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's no possible legal justification for firing a person in retaliation for their sibling's misconduct.

Not entirely.
If they work in the WH, they have a security clearance, and a pretty high one. The cooks in the Navy Kitchen all have a Secret. Part of the background check is a search for family connections that may have a negative impact on their trustiworthinessity. Depending on the clearance level, the threshold for possible impacts can be very low.
I knew of a missile technician who was very, very distantly related to Nicolae Ceaușescu. He was three generations from anyone who'd even been in Romania, and had had no contact with that side of the family, and their name was spelled differently (pronounced the same, very weird), but he was still denied the clearance to handle nuclear weapons just on that connection. A 'better safe than sorry' approach due to the severity of the possible 'sorry.'

It is possible that if Vindman (1) felt he was railroaded in his termination at that post, with negative impacts on his livelihood, self-image, and his ability to enjoy playing bridge, he might conceivably turn from a lifetime of honorable service and a really shiny record as a patriot to someone maybe even a little critical of the President, then Vindman (2) might by sympathetic with the slight criticality, and might look for a reason to become a witness to further 'perfect' phone conversations leading to being subpoenaed by Congress and choosing to unpatriotically and vengefully OBEY THE FUCKING LAW with malice aforethought.

However, these issues do take more than a goddamned hour to process, so while the Shitegibbon's administration will certainly 'cite' these concerns at the deposition, it'll be a CYA retcon of a temper tantrum.

 

[angelo]

I'm still hoping that steps are taken to impeach the House speaker Pelosi, or at least throw the old and bitter hag out of Congress once the GOP re-takes the house in November.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm still hoping that steps are taken to impeach the House speaker Pelosi,

And on what charges, angelo?

What has she done that is worse than what Bonespurs has done in the last two weeks?

 

[Worldtraveller]

I'm still hoping that steps are taken to impeach the House speaker Pelosi,

And on what charges, angelo?

What has she done that is worse than what Bonespurs has done in the last two weeks?

Well, she dared to question dear leader.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

And as a reminder, the rabid base of President Trump is chanting eagerly for the imprisonment of a leader of the opposition party. And much to the President's glee.

This is unparalleled for our nation's history.

 

[Keith&Co.]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

Yeah, yeah, saw that.
But 'charges.' Looking for 'charges.'
Because as of THIS year, it's got to be an actual crime to impeach someone. Not just bad optics.
Can angelo identify a pretext to LockHerUp?

 

[ZiprHead]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

Yeah, yeah, saw that.
But 'charges.' Looking for 'charges.'
Because as of THIS year, it's got to be an actual crime to impeach someone. Not just bad optics.
Can angelo identify a pretext to LockHerUp?

She was doing it to help her re-election chances and that's good for the country, therefore not impeachable.

Really.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

Yeah, yeah, saw that.
But 'charges.' Looking for 'charges.'
Because as of THIS year, it's got to be an actual crime to impeach someone. Not just bad optics.
Can angelo identify a pretext to LockHerUp?

Yes.

There is a right-wing meme that it was illegal for her to rip up an "official" document. This has been debunked at snopes.com but President Dear Leader is repeating it.

Even if it was somehow an argument, the claim to illegality would be unconstitutional since there were multiple copies, it was distributed freely, and her actions were a matter of first amendment protections.

 

[lpetrich]

Dystopia Journal #38: Impunity | Adam Lee

But in spite of that, I’m glad we did it. However long the odds, we had to try. It drives home the gravity of Trump’s conduct, and it sends a message that Democrats are prepared to do whatever is in their power to stop him. To roll over and accede, without even a fight, would have sent the message that impeachment is dead and that there is no remedy when a president breaks the law.

In a way, I’m glad that the Senate voted against calling witnesses. It makes the issue at hand that much clearer.

That it was about power more than anything else.

As to Mitt Romney, he's a Mormon, and that gives him an independent power base.

Then on how unrepresentative the Republicans are.

Democratic Senators represent a total of 168 million Americans and Romney 1.5 million, a total figure 18 million greater than the 151.5 million represented by the remaining Republican senators who voted to acquit. Yet the acquittal was confirmed.

If this had happened once, it could be dismissed as an aberration permitted by America’s arcane political system. But, I’m coming to believe, it’s central to the Republican strategy. As their voters age and die, as rural regions depopulate while young people flock to cities, they’re focusing more and more on establishing perpetual minority rule for themselves. We can expect ever-more-aggressive gerrymandering and voter suppression in the future, and there will no doubt be worse to come.

 

[angelo]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

Yeah, yeah, saw that.
But 'charges.' Looking for 'charges.'
Because as of THIS year, it's got to be an actual crime to impeach someone. Not just bad optics.
Can angelo identify a pretext to LockHerUp?

How about a charge of the traitors trying to overturn the 2016 election, for one. Anti Americanism for another by caring more for illegals than American legal citizens. That's just for starters. There are many more compelling reasons, but I'm sure Americans will pass their judgment themselves come November.

 

[zorq]

She exercised free speech by ripping up a paper that President Dear Leader asked someone to type all by himself. This is why Republicans are screaming to Lock Her Up.

Yeah, yeah, saw that.
But 'charges.' Looking for 'charges.'
Because as of THIS year, it's got to be an actual crime to impeach someone. Not just bad optics.
Can angelo identify a pretext to LockHerUp?

How about a charge of the traitors trying to overturn the 2016 election, for one.

This makes no sense. Mike Pence was on the ballot in 2016 too you know. So if Trump were evicted and Pence took over, the occupant of the White House would still be a person from the winning ticket. But anyway... You seem to think that bringing articles of impeachment on the president is an offence worthy of articles of impeachment... No. Impeachment is a power given to congress in the US Constitution, just like passing laws. Should congress people be impeached for passing laws too? No. It's their job.

Anti Americanism for another by caring more for illegals than American legal citizens.

First of all.. Cite? And your overactive imagination doesn't count. FYI, this is just simply not the case. Second of all... since when is "caring" a crime? You make it abundantly clear with every post that you have absolutely no clue what impeachment is.

That's just for starters. There are many more compelling reasons, but I'm sure Americans will pass their judgment themselves come November.

It better be "just starters" because you aren't starting strong at all. You are going to need some actual impeachable offences. Keep digging, or just accept that spouting BS out of your ass doesn't work on people who know what they are talking about.

 

[angelo]

How about a charge of the traitors trying to overturn the 2016 election, for one.

This makes no sense. Mike Pence was on the ballot in 2016 too you know. So if Trump were evicted and Pence took over, the occupant of the White House would still be a person from the winning ticket. But anyway... You seem to think that bringing articles of impeachment on the president is an offence worthy of articles of impeachment... No. Impeachment is a power given to congress in the US Constitution, just like passing laws. Should congress people be impeached for passing laws too? No. It's their job.

Anti Americanism for another by caring more for illegals than American legal citizens.

First of all.. Cite? And your overactive imagination doesn't count. FYI, this is just simply not the case. Second of all... since when is "caring" a crime? You make it abundantly clear with every post that you have absolutely no clue what impeachment is.

That's just for starters. There are many more compelling reasons, but I'm sure Americans will pass their judgment themselves come November.

It better be "just starters" because you aren't starting strong at all. You are going to need some actual impeachable offences. Keep digging, or just accept that spouting BS out of your ass doesn't work on people who know what they are talking about.

Had Dems not won the house, there wouldn't have been an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. In other words, No impeachment. Which proves just how politically motivated the whole witch hunt was.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This makes no sense. Mike Pence was on the ballot in 2016 too you know. So if Trump were evicted and Pence took over, the occupant of the White House would still be a person from the winning ticket. But anyway... You seem to think that bringing articles of impeachment on the president is an offence worthy of articles of impeachment... No. Impeachment is a power given to congress in the US Constitution, just like passing laws. Should congress people be impeached for passing laws too? No. It's their job.


First of all.. Cite? And your overactive imagination doesn't count. FYI, this is just simply not the case. Second of all... since when is "caring" a crime? You make it abundantly clear with every post that you have absolutely no clue what impeachment is.

That's just for starters. There are many more compelling reasons, but I'm sure Americans will pass their judgment themselves come November.

It better be "just starters" because you aren't starting strong at all. You are going to need some actual impeachable offences. Keep digging, or just accept that spouting BS out of your ass doesn't work on people who know what they are talking about.

Had Dems not won the house, there wouldn't have been an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. In other words, No impeachment. Which proves just how politically motivated the whole witch hunt was.

Twitler and Vlad are the ones who fucked the 2016 election.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Can angelo identify a pretext to LockHerUp?

How about a charge of the traitors trying to overturn the 2016 election, for one.

If that were true, and not just a GOP sound bite, how doesvthst make them traitors?
Treason is the only crime actually defined in the Constitution. A power grab within the government doesn't qualify, far as i can tell.
But this is not possible unless they impeached Pence at the same time. No one's done much to implicate Pence, have thry?
I mean, i doubt he's clean, but that's still another step in this paranoid fantasy.

Anti Americanism for another by caring more for illegals than American legal citizens.

More? Or also?
Seems terribly Christsin to love our neighbors, innit?
But the True Christains of the GOP are pretending that illegals seeking better lives are a threat. And blaming the Dems.

That's just for starters.

They're stupid starters.
So, no, if those are your openers, you got bupkes.

There are many more compelling reasons, but I'm sure Americans will pass their judgment themselves come November.

Then why are you hoping for impeachment?
The GOP has been bitching about a 'waste of money' in the impeachment process when we could just wait for the election...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This makes no sense. Mike Pence was on the ballot in 2016 too you know. So if Trump were evicted and Pence took over, the occupant of the White House would still be a person from the winning ticket. But anyway... You seem to think that bringing articles of impeachment on the president is an offence worthy of articles of impeachment... No. Impeachment is a power given to congress in the US Constitution, just like passing laws. Should congress people be impeached for passing laws too? No. It's their job.


First of all.. Cite? And your overactive imagination doesn't count. FYI, this is just simply not the case. Second of all... since when is "caring" a crime? You make it abundantly clear with every post that you have absolutely no clue what impeachment is.

That's just for starters. There are many more compelling reasons, but I'm sure Americans will pass their judgment themselves come November.

It better be "just starters" because you aren't starting strong at all. You are going to need some actual impeachable offences. Keep digging, or just accept that spouting BS out of your ass doesn't work on people who know what they are talking about.

Had Dems not won the house, there wouldn't have been an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. In other words, No impeachment. Which proves just how politically motivated the whole witch hunt was.

Trump was impeached, not Pence... so convicting and removing Trump would have still seen Pence, who was elected by the Electoral College, become President. So that wouldn't be overturning the election. You've been told this, you know this.

 

[lpetrich]

How about a charge of the traitors trying to overturn the 2016 election, for one.

Hateful nonsense.

It is also contrary to the Constitution, because that document proves ways of "overturning" elections.

Anti Americanism for another by caring more for illegals than American legal citizens.

More hateful nonsense.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump was impeached, not Pence... so convicting and removing Trump would have still seen Pence, who was elected by the Electoral College, become President. So that wouldn't be overturning the election. You've been told this, you know this.

1) imoeach Bonespurs.
2) People scream, if you convict, we get Pence!
3) convict anyway
4) Pence becomes President, not Nancy or any Dem.
5) Pence appoints Palin as VP
6) new crimes come to light, impeach Pence
7) people scream, don't do it, we get Palin!
8) convict anyway
9) Palin becomes Pres, not Nancy or any Dem
10) Palin appoints Rush Limbaugh as VP
11) impeach, screaming, convict anyway, Rush, not Nancy...
12) Rush appoints Imperial Grand Wizard as VP
13) Rush fucking dares Dems to impeach
14) screaming
15) rush dies in office from consumption
16)screaming
17) the South rises again, but this time THEY are the Federal Army
18) Lincoln Memorial bombed down, illegal to spend pennies or $5's with Abe's likeness
19) AM radio maintains this is all part of Hillary's plan to take over the White House

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Had Dems not won the house, there wouldn't have been an attempt to overturn the 2016 election. In other words, No impeachment. Which proves just how politically motivated the whole witch hunt was.

Error!

It proves one of two scenarios:

1) (Your scenario) The impeachment is politically motivated.

or

2) The tolerance of his misdeeds is politically motivated.