Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.newsweek.com/devin-nunes-spent-57000-flights-europe-allegedly-investigate-bidens-1473765

So this almost by itself proves the accusation as it seems extremely unlikely to me that Giuliani’s goon would know Nunes was in the area to create a believable
lie.

There is actually a much darker angle here. This implies the GOP were well involved. It also indicates that the GOP and Trump attempted to get dirt on Biden very early, it seems that they found out there was no dirt (other than conflict of interest), which would mean the shakedown on the new Ukrainian President was an attempt to knowingly slander VP Biden for political gain. And that would make this Watergate on steroids.

 

[angelo]

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile Giuliani says he has lots of evidence against Bidens... locked in a safe... just in case. Boy I bet Trump likes to hear that!

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

The Trump Admin and GOP apparently disagreed with you.

Granted, had they read you documentation on the Biden corruption that you posted in that epic long OP about 18 months ago, we might have been saved all of this trouble.

 

[barbos]

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

Then Nunes need to reimburse american taxpayers $57k.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

Make that your opening salvo in a courtroom and the judge will throw it out.

 

[Elixir]

https://www.newsweek.com/devin-nunes-spent-57000-flights-europe-allegedly-investigate-bidens-1473765

So this almost by itself proves the accusation as it seems extremely unlikely to me that Giuliani’s goon would know Nunes was in the area to create a believable
lie.

There is actually a much darker angle here. This implies the GOP were well involved.

We will probably never know exactly how the message was delivered, but it's all but certain that Pootey has threatened to pull the orange rug out from under the GOP. Their vocal complicity in Trump's treasonous conspiracy has been rather sudden and extreme.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

Make that your opening salvo in a courtroom and the judge will throw it out.

I think the point was that no opening salvo is needed. It's the one thing Trump and Biden have in common. They are both their own undoing. That last debate showed it again. Nobody went after Biden. All of his wounds were self inflicted. Both the moment of him forgetting Harris exists and his moment saying he wants to punch at and punch at violence against women. Trump had more over the top but similar self wounding attacks when he was running, yet he somehow won anyway. Maybe Biden will too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

Then Nunes need to reimburse american taxpayers $57k.

And Putin.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden doesn't need any slandering against him to destroy what little credibility he has left. He's doing that all by himself.

Make that your opening salvo in a courtroom and the judge will throw it out.

I think the point was that no opening salvo is needed. It's the one thing Trump and Biden have in common. They are both their own undoing. That last debate showed it again. Nobody went after Biden. All of his wounds were self inflicted. Both the moment of him forgetting Harris exists and his moment saying he wants to punch at and punch at violence against women. Trump had more over the top but similar self wounding attacks when he was running, yet he somehow won anyway. Maybe Biden will too.

Had more "over the top" but similar? In the debate, he was talking about how big his Trump Jr was. These type of moments aren't located in the same zip code, area code, or continent. Biden simply isn't a great candidate. Trying to compare these two is just dumb.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump may be implying here that the Democrats have more important things that they ought to be doing.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, AOC and the rest of the Democrats are not getting important legislation done, hence, the Do Nothing Democrats. USMCA, National Defense Authorization Act, Gun Safety, Prescription Drug Prices, & Infrastructure are dead in the water because of the Dems!" / Twitter
It got Twitter responses:

BlessYourHeart on Twitter: "@realDonaldTrump Sad. #Presidementia https://t.co/vJKHxlKO81" / Twitter - with a cartoon of Mitch McConnell saying "Do-Nothing Dems need to stop passing all these bills for me to ignore. I can't find my desk."

Andy Ostroy on Twitter: "@realDonaldTrump BULLSHIT. It’s your party, led by that DO-NOTHING @senatemajldr #McConnell, who can’t get anything done. You LIE yet again... #Trump https://t.co/gYThBExzE5" / Twitter
As Trump Complains Democrats ‘Do Nothing,’ McConnell Holds Up 400 Bills - The National Memo

Paulina on Twitter: "@realDonaldTrump https://t.co/ai2lgItif4" / Twitter - with a picture of Trump with caption "Imagine if a woman president got on Twitter every morning to complain about people being mean and unfair to her. Weak. Hysterical. Shrill. Bitch. Unfit to lead."

One of his targets responded:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "In my first 11 months I’ve cosponsored 339 pieces of legislation, authored 15, took on Big Pharma w/ my colleagues in hearings that brought PreP generic a year early & exposed abuse of power.
In 4 years, you’ve jailed kids & made corruption the cause celebré.
Try to keep up. https://t.co/lyg30LKVCd" / Twitter

Source: Ocasio-Cortez fires back after Trump brands her a 'Do Nothing Democrat' | TheHill

 

[lpetrich]

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Polls have now turned very strongly against Impeachment, especially in swing states. 75% to 25%. Thank you!" / Twitter
Dream on.

As I suspected earlier.
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "This is the real story behind the Do Nothing Democrats! https://t.co/4tPTICdSR1" / Twitter
noting
Ryan Saavedra on Twitter: "New RNC ad uses Democrats' own words on impeachment against them https://t.co/GDm8xgJ0wR" / Twitter

Quoting AOC, Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaib, and some others.

AOC in it: "This is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year." But it quoted her out of context. She was referring to foreign meddling, like by Russian troll farms.

Also quoting her out of context:
Steve Scalise on Twitter: "Rep. Ocasio-Cortez admits Dems are using impeachment to rig 2020 against @realDonaldTrump.
Take her at her word → "This is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year."
Make no mistake: This is about power for Dems. Nothing else. https://t.co/da8JqSlQkC" / Twitter
SS links to some more video of AOC, complete with the previously-omitted context.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Trump impeachment: White House aides can be made to testify

A federal judge has ruled that White House staff can be made to testify before Congress, rejecting the Trump administration's claims of immunity.

The ruling specifically compels former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify to an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

But it also has major implications for the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The justice department says it will appeal against the ruling.

I'm not too encouraged if this goes to SCOTUS, however, as I think it will elect to review. But who knows, this is good for now.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is this up to a SCOTUS appeal yet? Also, there should be no appeal allowed. The law is settled on this issue.

McGahn is funny to. I'll testify if the judge says I need to. Now it is, I'll testify if the Trump Admin doesn't appeal.

 

[Elixir]

Trump impeachment: White House aides can be made to testify

A federal judge has ruled that White House staff can be made to testify before Congress, rejecting the Trump administration's claims of immunity.

The ruling specifically compels former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify to an inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

But it also has major implications for the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The justice department says it will appeal against the ruling.

I'm not too encouraged if this goes to SCOTUS, however, as I think it will elect to review. But who knows, this is good for now.

It is worth paying attention to how quickly the court decides to take this up or give its refusal. If they delay that decision then take it up, we're probably in deep trouble. I refuse to go there, yet. I am cautiously optimistic that SCOTUS will pause long enough to avoid accusations of a "snap decision", then refuse to hear it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

McGahn and the Justice Department have appealed the ruling.

McGahn has a "significant chance" of winning on appeal, the Justice Department writes, adding that no appeals court has settled whether the executive branch can stop White House officials from testifying in congressional proceedings.

I ponder why they would suggest that when the President of the United States (Nixon) had to turn over the tapes.

 

[Horatio Parker]

McGahn and the Justice Department have appealed the ruling.

McGahn has a "significant chance" of winning on appeal, the Justice Department writes, adding that no appeals court has settled whether the executive branch can stop White House officials from testifying in congressional proceedings.

I ponder why they would suggest that when the President of the United States (Nixon) had to turn over the tapes.

To run out the clock, of course. But McGahn and the others will have to appear at the Senate trial AFAIK(assuming the vote goes through).

 

[Elixir]

McGahn and the Justice Department have appealed the ruling.

McGahn has a "significant chance" of winning on appeal, the Justice Department writes, adding that no appeals court has settled whether the executive branch can stop White House officials from testifying in congressional proceedings.

I ponder why they would suggest that when the President of the United States (Nixon) had to turn over the tapes.

To run out the clock, of course.

That's why the speed with which SCOTUS takes this up - or not - is a prime indicator.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

McGahn and the Justice Department have appealed the ruling.

McGahn has a "significant chance" of winning on appeal, the Justice Department writes, adding that no appeals court has settled whether the executive branch can stop White House officials from testifying in congressional proceedings.

I ponder why they would suggest that when the President of the United States (Nixon) had to turn over the tapes.

To run out the clock, of course. But McGahn and the others will have to appear at the Senate trial AFAIK(assuming the vote goes through).

I believe I read that the Senate, in a vote can overrule the Chief Justice when it comes to just about anything.

 

[Worldtraveller]

NPR was interviewing a GOP'er in Congress on Friday and he wouldn't bite on what Trump had done, as it is all "theoretical" right now. The interviewer did ask if the accusation gave the GOP'er congressman pause. He noted yes. What I wish the interviewer asked next was "Why?" Because the harshest the GOP has got is 'well what he did was inappropriate, but not impeachable'. It'd be good to get a congressman on record as to why what happened would be inappropriate.

Without 60 Dem votes in the Senate, the GOP still can strangle the Senate.

If Dems take over the senate, could they remove the sixty vote filibuster rule?

No.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on
Oath or Affi rmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two
thirds of the Members present.

Unlike all the "Senate Rules" that Moscowmitch is using to block bills, this one is mandated by the constitution itself.

 

[TV and credit cards]

December 4th. If he showed, would he make a spectacle of himself?

Well, you are cordially invited Fuckstick.

At base, the president has a choice to make: He can take this opportunity to be represented in the impeachment hearings, or he can stop complaining about the process.

Nadler said in his letter that the hearing was intended as an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis of impeachment, as well as the meaning of terms like “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Finally. If you stood on the street asking people to define "high crimes and misdemeanors", you'd die of exposure before you got anything close to a correct answer.