ChrisWeigant.com

Should Pelosi Hold Impeachment Inquiry Vote?

[ Posted Thursday, October 10th, 2019 – 17:20 UTC ]

The biggest question Nancy Pelosi will face next week, when the House of Representatives gets back from yet another multiweek vacation, will be whether or not to hold a full floor vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry that has already begun in various House committees. There are arguments to be made both pro and con on the issue, and so far Pelosi has been resisting the pressure to hold such a vote. President Donald Trump upped the stakes on this decision by claiming in a White House letter that he's not going to comply with any subpoena or request for interviews or documents until the House holds such a vote. But it's still an open question whether he would do so even with a floor vote for the impeachment inquiry, because if he stays true to form then he'll just manufacture another specious argument for why he is continuing to stonewall Congress.

Pelosi, up until now, has declared that an impeachment inquiry is already underway and that the Constitution has no requirement for a floor vote, therefore one is simply not necessary. She's right about the Constitution, which leaves the entire process an open question. Here are the relevant passages. The first is from Article II, Section 4 (Article II deals with the powers and duties of the president):


The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I, which deals with Congress, references impeachment twice, first in Section 2 (which deals with the House of Representatives):

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Then in Section 3, it outlines the Senate's role in the matter:

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. 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.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

That's pretty much it. The House "shall have the sole power of impeachment" is the only guidance from the Constitution's text. Note that there is nothing in there about committees or floor votes at all, proving Pelosi correct. There's one other relevant excerpt, which is generic in nature but is still important to the question of impeachment process, from Article I, Section 5:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

We know full well that Donald Trump hasn't read this particular sentence, since he keeps tweeting that various congressmen and senators should "be impeached." As you can see, this isn't how it happens -- it's a separate process from impeachment altogether. But the first part of that sentence is what gives Pelosi the power to conduct impeachment any way she sees fit, as long as it conforms to the rules and regulations the House has set up for itself. "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings," which most definitely includes an impeachment proceeding.

Pelosi, in other words, is on solid constitutional grounds here, and Trump is talking nonsense. But that's not really too surprising, is it?

But while the constitutional questions have been answered, the political equation is different. What it boils down to is whether a full House vote would help Democrats politically or hurt them. The Republicans are seeing this through a political lens, because they believe that forcing House Democrats to go on the record for an impeachment inquiry would help them politically next year, especially in all those swing districts Democrats picked up in 2018. Democratic candidates who have been elected in districts Trump won might have to face the wrath of pro-Trump voters, Republicans figure.

Trump has another reason for forcing a vote, because in the two modern impeachment instances (Nixon and Clinton), when the House voted to begin a full impeachment inquiry, they also gave the White House the ability to have their own counsel at all hearings and allowed the minority party to summon and question their own witnesses. Trump figures, quite rightly, that if Republicans on these committees had such power, they could be a lot more effective in throwing a few monkey wrenches into the process. The first witness they'd likely call would be Hunter Biden, for instance.

Republicans see the whole thing as a win-win situation, really, because if Pelosi continues to resist holding the vote, then they can hammer her on that fact and thus distract from the mounting evidence against Trump. They'd much rather rant and rave about Pelosi than answer questions like: "Do you think any president should be allowed to solicit help from foreign governments to get dirt on their political opponents?" If Pelosi resists, then Republicans from Trump on down will paint the whole process as "unfair" -- which they'd much rather talk about than what Trump has done.

The biggest argument against Pelosi holding the vote is that it would appear that she's giving in and doing Trump's bidding. Trump would be seen as driving the process, not the House Democrats, which he would tout as a political win.

But the flip coin of this is the biggest argument for Pelosi to hold the vote. If the House votes, then Trump is denied his current reason for obstruction. He'd immediately make up some other reason, of course -- nobody really expects him to gracefully begin cooperating after such a vote is held. He'd continue to obstruct, by shifting his reason for obstructing to something else. But by doing so he would weaken his position with the public. Right now, Trump can convince some moderates that the process is unfair, but if Pelosi went ahead and did what he was asking for, the same moderates would expect Trump to then begin cooperating. When he failed to, the poll numbers of those supporting impeachment would almost certainly climb, because Trump would be revealed as the one desperately trying to make the entire process unfair, not Pelosi.

As for impeachment inquiry votes coming back to haunt swing-district Democrats, I think the risk is a bit overblown. This isn't a vote to impeach the president, after all, it is merely a vote to officially investigate him. That's a far different thing, obviously, and I think the voters are smart enough to know the difference. The evidence already presented to the public is so damning that it's pretty obvious that impeachment should at least be considered at this point, which means voting to do so is probably not going to cause much political harm. In fact, what is currently causing more political harm is asking Republican senators in tough re-election races that basic question: "Do you think any president should be allowed to solicit help from foreign governments to get dirt on their political opponents?" So far, stonewalling this question hasn't been working out very well for Susan Collins, Joni Ernst, and Cory Gardner. And it's not like the journalists are going to stop asking the question any time soon. The refusal to answer what is, at heart, a very easy question is going to continue hurting those Republicans who don't hail from ruby-red districts or states.

So far, Pelosi is holding firm. She's scheduled a conference call tomorrow with all her House Democrats, though, so she could be persuaded to change her mind if enough of them tell her to just go ahead with the impeachment inquiry vote. Even some of the Democrats from those swing districts are already calling on Pelosi to do so, meaning Pelosi's stance could very well change over the weekend.

Pelosi can include anything she wants in such a bill, of course. She is not bound by what happened during Watergate and the Clinton impeachment. She could only narrowly give powers to the minority party, for instance, limiting their ability to throw mud into the process. She could explicitly state that refusal to comply with subpoenas, from this point on, will be considered in itself an impeachable offense. The House can adopt whatever rules for the impeachment inquiry it chooses to adopt, just as the Constitution explicitly points out.

Personally, I've been on the fence over whether it would be a good move for Pelosi to hold the vote. I can see the arguments from both sides of the question, and there is a good case to be made either way. Holding the vote would appear in the short term to be Pelosi caving to Trump's demand, but in the longer term it would deny Trump a big argument he's making against the Democrats. It would force him to come up with some other reason for stonewalling, and the public could see precisely which side was being unfair. At the same time, however, Pelosi could continue to ignore Trump because that would serve to keep the impeachment process on a very fast track. If Pelosi intends (as some have reported) to hold a vote as quickly as possible on as narrow a set of articles of impeachment as she can -- voting by Thanksgiving over just the Ukraine collusion, in other words -- then refusing to hold a floor vote would allow that to happen as planned. Holding a full floor vote and allowing Republicans the ability to slow things down would put that timetable at risk, obviously. But this would also allow Trump to continue his rationale for stonewalling as well.

It's a tough decision to make, politically, because there are both risks and benefits either way Pelosi chooses to go. My guess is that she'll allow her caucus to largely decide among themselves. If enough of them agree that holding the vote is the way to go, then Pelosi will likely do so. If a huge majority argues against doing so, then Pelosi will likely continue to refuse to hold a vote. Either way, though, it seems likely that the issue will indeed be decided either on tomorrow's conference call or soon thereafter. If Pelosi does agree to hold the vote, it will likely be one of the first things the House does next week.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

100 Comments on “Should Pelosi Hold Impeachment Inquiry Vote?”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Maybe there is a third option to having an inquiry vote or not - and I'm on the side of finishing the investigation expeditiously, drawing up the articles (and, I think more is better than less) of impeachment and then having the big vote.

    Isn't it very important that this process be seen by everyone to be fair?

    Aren't there things that the speaker could do to increase the fairness of the process without giving Republicans the ability to call their own witnesses?

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Pelosi should announce with great fanfare that she'll hold an impeachment inquiry vote on a date in the future that will allow every member of the House of Representatives to review the evidence to date and make a determination whether to continue the impeachment inquiry. Meanwhile, the three committees will continue "balls to the walls" to collect the damning evidence against the Trump administration (it gets worse from here) and then dare the Republicans in the House to vote "no" in the face of all the evidence that implicates Trump and others in campaign finance violations wherein foreign nationals were solicited by Trump who conspired with multiple officials of his administration to commit the crime/coverup.

    MAGA: Making Attorneys Get Attorneys

    Rudy meet bus.

    Pelosi should set the terms of the impeachment vote because Trump isn't going to cooperate regardless. See Mueller Report Part 2 which is a roadmap for impeachment of Trump based on multiple instances of Trump's obstruction. Trump won't/can't cooperate because he knows what he did, knows that documents were destroyed in coverup, knows that Bill Barr directly interfered in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and knows of Giuliani's, Pompeo's, Barr's and others' efforts in attempting to invent a phony "deep state" conspiracy to serve Trump's agenda and not the interests of "We the People" to which he swore an oath.

    This "Ukraine" issue isn't separate from Trump/Russia; it's simply the continuing saga to rewrite the findings of the Mueller investigation, absolve Russia, and release sanctions. #SSDD

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Pelosi is not in any hurry. Who knows how many other individuals, with ties to the former Soviet Union and Rudy G and holding one way airline tickets are going to be apprehended at an airport by the FBI? This wine still needs to breath a bit more. Trump needs to sweat a little longer. Republicans too.

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    kick.-2

    The Trump Towering Inferno

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    You said on the last thread that it's not the Democrats' job to get as many Republicans on board with impeachment as is possible.

    Well, if it's not their job to do that, then they risk the impeachment of the president being seen by almost half the country as only a partisan attempt to force the president out of office rather than do all they possibly can to ensure at least a modicum of real bipartisanship that goes some way to mitigate even more division in the country than there already is.

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    4

    The Trump Towering Inferno

    Or is it the Trumptanic headed toward the iceberg?

    Fire and Ice

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice. ~ Robert Frost

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    5

    You said on the last thread that it's not the Democrats' job to get as many Republicans on board with impeachment as is possible.

    Russ is right, Elizabeth. It's the Democrats' job to investigate and present the facts and let the Republicans choose whether or not to grow a spine and honor their oath of office to their country, the people, and our rule of law.

    Well, if it's not their job to do that, then they risk the impeachment of the president being seen by almost half the country as only a partisan attempt to force the president out of office rather than do all they possibly can to ensure at least a modicum of real bipartisanship that goes some way to mitigate even more division in the country than there already is.

    Trump is a con, and they'll see any impeachment that way regardless of facts because they've been spoon-fed a steady diet of bullshit wherein they've bought "all in" to Trump's propaganda bullshit and steady moving of the goal posts to the point where admitting they were wrong about Trump would entail their admission of their own gullibility. Nope. It's much easier to buy into Trump's lies than admit they were duped... so it won't matter.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, KIck, the Democrats have a much more difficult job than you imagine.

  9. [9] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    I think that the decision whether to impeach should be made under the lens of being a member of Congress and the duties they are charged with upholding, therefore, partisanship should have no part in their decision making process. I realize that it is extremely tough for both parties to shed their partisanship lens — their point of views are typically channeled through that lens before all others. But this task demands they put biases aside and look solely at the evidence to determine if the President’s actions were unethical and warrant impeachment.

    That is why I don’t think the Democrats should have to work to get the Republicans on board. The evidence should do that on it’s own. The citizens represented by those Republicans should be contacting their Congressman/Congresswoman insisting that they do their job as the Constitution demands.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats don't get Republicans on board this impeachment, it will fail..

    Period.. Full stop..

    All Republicans have to do is throw ALL these Democrat quotes at the Democrats and Democrats will be toast..

    https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/04/impeachment-comments-democrats-would-rather-you-forget/

    It's really that simple..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Aren't there things that the speaker could do to increase the fairness of the process without giving Republicans the ability to call their own witnesses?

    Why are ya'all so afraid of Republicans calling their own witnesses???

    Don't you think that President Trump should be afforded ALL the rights and benefit of the doubt possible??

    Joe Biden thought so..

    "It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts"
    -Joe Biden

    Why are Democrats so afraid of allowing President Trump to mount a defense?? Why are Democrats so afraid of due process??

    Republicans allowed President Clinton those rights when Clinton was impeached..

    Or, maybe you are advocating that the process should be different when it's a GOP POTUS who is in the cross hairs.. Hmmmmm??? :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats don't get Republicans on board this impeachment, it will fail..

    To clarify...

    The impeachment will fail, regardless.. It is nearly guaranteed that this ONLY ends with President Trump remaining in office..

    If Democrats don't get the GOP on board, as they did with the Nixon Impeachment (that never was), then not only will will President Trump remain in office, but he will be immeasurably stronger going into the 2020 election..

    And Democrats won't be able to get GOP'ers on board because the GOP'ers know that the Democrats' attempt to kill the king will fail..

    And everyone knows that if you try to kill the king... You better KILL the king..

    In other words, the impeachment of President Trump will fail.. GOP'ers who support impeachment will find themselves on President Trump's shit list..

    And President Trump will have 4 more years of making those traitorous Republicans' lives a living hell..

    So, no.. Democrats will not get any relevant GOP'ers on board..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You said on the last thread that it's not the Democrats' job to get as many Republicans on board with impeachment as is possible.

    Well, if it's not their job to do that, then they risk the impeachment of the president being seen by almost half the country as only a partisan attempt to force the president out of office rather than do all they possibly can to ensure at least a modicum of real bipartisanship that goes some way to mitigate even more division in the country than there already is.

    That is exactly factually accurate..

    This Democrat faux impeachment coup will fail, regardless... Just like their Russia Collusion delusion coup failed..

    How SPECTACULARLY it will fail will depend on whether or not Democrats get any relevant GOP'ers on board..

    It's uncanny... But once again, Democrats have been maneuvered into a perfect LOSE-LOSE situation..

    The only part that is unclear is how BADLY Democrats will lose..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president, officials reveal
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal

    And the plot, as they say, thickens...

  15. [15] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Joe Biden worked with whistleblower when he was vice president, officials reveal

    OMG!!! Do you know who else worked with the whistleblower??? Trump!

    I love how Trump supporters are willing to unfairly attack the reputation of members of our intelligence agencies and law enforcement by inferring that they must be lying based on allegations as damning as the fact that they attended a movie that the VP also saw! Yet, when Trump flat out admits on TV that he asked multiple foreign governments to do him a favor, his supporters call Trump a liar because they know if he did, that would be bad!

  16. [16] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I, personally, look forward to hearing Trump testify before Congress, as he will no doubt want the opportunity to personally tell the nation HIS version of what happened.

    He’ll put those Democrats to shame as he throws their accusations right back in their faces with his detailed accounts and dramatic retelling of the phone conversations he had with foreign leaders!

    #LetTrumpTestify

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    The depth of hatred that Democrats exhibit over President Trump precludes ANY semblance of impartiality or bias..

    Be honest, Russ.. Would YOU be allowed to sit on a jury, unbiased-ly judging President Trump for his crimes?

    No, you cannot..

    TRY to look at things logically and rationally..

    Why is it that ONLY Democrats and Trump/America haters find these "crimes" of President Trump's??

    I mean, if President Trump is the incompetent crook that YOU claim he is.. Why isn't a Trump supporter ever leading the charge??

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    8

    Actually, KIck, the Democrats have a much more difficult job than you imagine.

    Actually, Elizabeth, you really have no idea what I imagine since I don't happen to be one of those posters who reveals everything I know or think and/or envision... you know, like every other poster here except on a much grander scale and then multiplied exponentially. :)

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    I, personally, look forward to hearing Trump testify before Congress, as he will no doubt want the opportunity to personally tell the nation HIS version of what happened.

    Yea.. You said the same thing when you were in the throes of your Russia Collusion delusion...

    Remind me again how that worked out...??

    Oh yea.. President Trump completely and utterly exonerated on ALL counts...

    Let's face the facts, Russ.. You don't have a very good track record.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to the subject of this commentary, it's really quite simple..

    If Democrats are comfortable with their position, they should not be afraid to follow the precedents set out by previous impeachments..

    If Democrats are scared of fairness and due process, then by all means.. They should NOT follow history and precedence..

    As I said.. It's simple..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump protest in Minneapolis erupts in pepper spray, MAGA hat fires
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-minneapolis-protest-impeachment-maga-hats-fire

    Ahh yes.. The "tolerance" and "respect" of the Democrat Party.. :eyeroll:

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ukraine whistleblower wants to testify in writing instead of appearing in person, report says
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-whistleblower-wants-to-testify-in-writing-instead-of-appearing-in-person-report-says

    If someone is not willing to stand up and stand behind their claims, then the credibility of the claims are in question..

    It's easy to make anonymous complaints when you are hiding behind said anonymity...

    It takes REAL courage to stand up and be counted..

    This "whistleblower" is afraid??

    What kind of pussies are the CIA churning out these days???

    If a person doesn't stand behind their claims PUBLICLY and PROUDLY, then said person is not credible and their claims are suspect and can easily be written off as nothing but Partisan bigotry....

    It's THAT simple...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    When my wife and I renew our vows next year, I want THIS wedding cake..

    https://tinyurl.com/y6y5m8j8

    And if the baker refuses, it's discrimination!!! :D

  24. [24] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-6

    More like the Poseidon Adventure:

    Old vessel, doubts about seaworthiness, rogue wave, upside down, how the hell do we get out of this thing.

    Trump is, of course, the Poseidon...not just because of the girth and big red bottom..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump is, of course, the Poseidon...not just because of the girth and big red bottom..

    Well, I am sure glad ya'all don't stoop to third grade playground personal insults.. :eyeroll:

    Funny how ya'all complain about that when Trump does it, but don't mind going there yerselves...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Following this morning's theme.. Simplifying things..

    Democrats are doing to President Trump exactly what Republicans did to President Clinton in the late 90s..

    And, unfortunately for Democrats, it's going to turn out the same way for Democrats as it did for Republicans in the 90s....

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:
  28. [28] 
    TheStig wrote:
  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whooaaa, Stig...

    SLOW down... Yer spamming the forum.. :D

    heh

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As you clearly pointed out in the article, it doesn't matter what Pelosi does or doesn't do. Pelosi will do whatever option makes this distraction last as long as possible.

    This will not be playing into Trump's hands, it's simply doing the job both are doing for the big money interests.

    Because as long as both "sides" can argue over whether and/or how the impeachment should proceed then both will be asked questions about the distraction instead of being asked any question aboot the root cause of the show- big money corrupting our political process.

    And the media plays their part by pretending this is not just a distraction.

    As long as the media is asking "Do you think any president should be allowed to solicit help from foreign governments to get dirt on their political opponents?" then they are not asking "Do you think any candidate should be soliciting big money contributions to run their campaigns?"

    80% of citizens want the big money out of politics.

    Every two years we have the opportunity to vote on this issue without the benefit of the media asking the candidates this most important question.

    We are instead offered nothing but distractions and excuses to not address the most important issue in every election that is the root cause of all the distraction issues and our malfunctioning democracy.

    If your job is to facilitate the show, then you are doing a great job.

    But if your job is to cover reality and inform citizens aboot what they can do to make our democracy work properly then you are doing a piss poor job.

    No matter what you have been doing you can choose your own job description going forward.

    Will you choose playing your part in the show or will you Get Real?

  31. [31] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Given that the FBI now have the 'Laurel and Hardy', at the center of the Ukraine bungle, behind bars, it would be wise to hold off and see what they have to say.

    We can all see plainly what's happened here, Giuliani, at the behest of Trump, got these two pro-Russian Uke's (who have been indicted for funneling Ruskie cash to a pro-Trump re-election organization and BRIBING a GOP congressman) to manufacture dirt on Biden. And yes, manufacture is the best word here, as crooks don't fish outside their ponds, in the same way honest people tend to go about their instructions in an honest way.

    It'll be amusing to how Giuliani, Trump and indeed all Trump apologists try to wriggle out of this Trumpian pickle. It's such a laughably amateurish attempt at political intrigue, Putin must be wondering if he picked the right horse in Trump...Sure, Trump has made a complete dog's breakfast out of American politics, but that will end in 13 months, then he'll be facing a real American president with a pile evidence to use against him within his own country.

    The only discussion to have now is, how much time in jail Giuliani, Trump, family and closest advisers will have to spend. Personally, I'd have a few of them summarily executed, it would be prudent to set an example for others that conspiring with foreign powers to meddle in domestic affairs won't be tolerated.

    Were this the eighteenth century, nothing less than the hangman's rope would be the penalty for what Trump and his gang have perpetrated. (I add that for the constitutional purists, you live by an archaic set of rules, expect to die by them too)

    Some advice for Giuliani... 'the FBI never ask a question for which they don't already know the answer'

    LL&P

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Given that the FBI now have the 'Laurel and Hardy', at the center of the Ukraine bungle, behind bars, it would be wise to hold off and see what they have to say.

    No one here has ever bothered to wait for FACTS before passing judgement on President Trump..

    Why start now??

    We can all see plainly what's happened here, Giuliani, at the behest of Trump, got these two pro-Russian Uke's (who have been indicted for funneling Ruskie cash to a pro-Trump re-election organization and BRIBING a GOP congressman) to manufacture dirt on Biden. And yes, manufacture is the best word here, as crooks don't fish outside their ponds, in the same way honest people tend to go about their instructions in an honest way.

    Yes.. Ya'all can plainly see yer delusion.. I grant you that..

    Some advice for Giuliani... 'the FBI never ask a question for which they don't already know the answer'

    Russia Collusion delusion..

    'nuff said :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's such a laughably amateurish attempt at political intrigue, Putin must be wondering if he picked the right horse in Trump...

    Yep.. I am SURE that Putin's very happy with his pick of the Democrat Party to divide this country...

    Keep in mind.. It's the Democrats who are doing Putin's bidding.. NOT President Trump..

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    15

    OMG!!! Do you know who else worked with the whistleblower??? Trump!

    This!

    And don't forget the "multiple Steves" and Mikes! *laughs*

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Russ,

    OMG!!! Do you know who else worked with the whistleblower??? Trump!

    Any FACTS to support that claim??

    No??? Your streak is intact, Russ.. :D

    ZERO FACTS... :D

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    16

    I, personally, look forward to hearing Trump testify before Congress, as he will no doubt want the opportunity to personally tell the nation HIS version of what happened.

    *laughs* He'll never do it, and any lawyer worth a dime wouldn't allow it since Trump speaking would equal perjury.

    He’ll put those Democrats to shame as he throws their accusations right back in their faces with his detailed accounts and dramatic retelling of the phone conversations he had with foreign leaders!

    Oh, okay... I hear you, Russ. :)

    #LetTrumpTestify

    #WhatCouldGoWrong?

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    Trump keeps his losing in court streak going!

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a subpoena that House Democrats sent to President Donald Trump’s accounting firm for his financial records and tax returns.

    The court issued a 2-1 ruling that the House Oversight & Reform Committee has the constitutional authority to investigate wrongdoing by the president of the United States and can therefore subpoena his financial records in pursuit of that investigation.

    The D.C. Circuit Court is one final step below the U.S. Supreme Court.

  38. [38] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    17

    The depth of hatred that Democrats exhibit over President Trump precludes ANY semblance of impartiality or bias..

    Interesting projection you've got going there, Mike, a veritable load of BS... but let's do talk about hatred. Have you ever seen a crowd of Democrats chanting "lock her up" and/or "lock him up"? No... not that you'd answer factually.

    Be honest, Russ.. Would YOU be allowed to sit on a jury, unbiased-ly judging President Trump for his crimes?

    Knowing the intricacies of a "jury charge" and how juries are asked a series of questions that ultimately lead to their verdict(s), I am sure that Russ could definitely do that.

    No, you cannot..

    So, with that nugget to add to our evidence pile -- along with the myriad and multitude of other evidence like Mike's worship of the Criminal-In-Chief -- I'd say we have a slam-dunk case of Mike being a lousy judge of character.

    TRY to look at things logically and rationally..

    You should never ask of others that which you're demonstrably and remotely not willing to do yourself. Sheeeeesh! :)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Question for ya'all..

    Why is it that it's ONLY Trump/America haters who come forward with these accusations??

    Why aren't there EVER any Trump voters or supporters who blow the whistle...

    Surely if President Trump's crimes and incompetence is as blatant as ya'all claim, Shirley a Trump supporter would have come forward.

    Why is it that THAT never happens??

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump keeps his losing in court streak going!

    The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a subpoena that House Democrats sent to President Donald Trump’s accounting firm for his financial records and tax returns.

    The court issued a 2-1 ruling that the House Oversight & Reform Committee has the constitutional authority to investigate wrongdoing by the president of the United States and can therefore subpoena his financial records in pursuit of that investigation.

    The D.C. Circuit Court is one final step below the U.S. Supreme Court

    And President Trump's winning streak at the SCOTUS (the ONLY court that counts) will also be intact..

    Sorry, JM.. You'll lose.. AGAIN.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    24

    More like the Poseidon Adventure:

    Ah, yes... good form.

    Old vessel, doubts about seaworthiness, rogue wave, upside down, how the hell do we get out of this thing.

    Thoughts and prayers.

    Trump is, of course, the Poseidon...not just because of the girth and big red bottom..

    So who survives?
    Everything Trump Touches Dies

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    26

    Democrats are doing to President Trump exactly what Republicans did to President Clinton in the late 90s..

    Your exercises in false equivalency are again duly noted.

    And, unfortunately for Democrats, it's going to turn out the same way for Democrats as it did for Republicans in the 90s....

    So Democrats winning back the White House in the subsequent election will just have to suck it up and take their punishment. :)

  43. [43] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why aren't there EVER any Trump voters or supporters who blow the whistle...

    because by the very act of doing so, they're no longer considered supporters, and their history is rewritten to accentuate their lack of support (e.g. michael cohen).

    “The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
    ~Orwell, 1984

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    31

    The only discussion to have now is, how much time in jail Giuliani, Trump, family and closest advisers will have to spend. Personally, I'd have a few of them summarily executed, it would be prudent to set an example for others that conspiring with foreign powers to meddle in domestic affairs won't be tolerated.

    Perish the thought, JTC... here's hoping to a long life for each and every one of them.

    Some advice for Giuliani... 'the FBI never ask a question for which they don't already know the answer'

    Oh, that myth!? I'd say it's more like 75/25. :)

  45. [45] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why are Democrats so afraid of allowing President Trump to mount a defense?? Why are Democrats so afraid of due process??

    donald is entitled to mount a defense at trial, which if he is impeached, will be held in the senate. that's not the house's responsibility.

    Once again, the communication|process has broken down. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directIy to triaI, skip that, and get a dismissaI.
    ~my-cousin-vinny

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hm, NNL killed my next comment.

    Once again, the communication|process has broken down.
    It appears to me that you want|to skip the arraignment process,...
    ..go directIy to triaI, skip that,|and get a dismissaI.

    Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=my-cousin-vinny

  47. [47] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    whoops

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    because by the very act of doing so, they're no longer considered supporters

    Says who??

    I can easily postulate a scenario where someone supports President Trump, voted for President Trump, but is required by duty and conscience to report criminal acts by President Trump..

    Not a SINGLE ONE of President Trump's accusers fit that description...

    EVERY accuser has an axe to grind..

    EVERY ACCUSER...

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    donald is entitled to mount a defense at trial, which if he is impeached, will be held in the senate. that's not the house's responsibility.

    And yet, with President Clinton, the GOP afforded President Clinton that EXACT privilege...

    I mean, hay...

    If Democrats are too scared to have a FAIR and BIPARTISAN impeachment, that's fine..

    But let's not kid ourselves that it is NOT a faux impeachment coup... It is...

    Kudos to the MY COUSIN VINNY quote, mangled delivery notwithstanding.. :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    donald is entitled to mount a defense at trial, which if he is impeached, will be held in the senate. that's not the house's responsibility.

    "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress"
    -Joe Biden

    "The country is not well served when either policy disagreements or personal animosities drive the process"
    -Joe Biden

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    "In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice"
    -Joe Biden

    "Permit one branch of government to subjugate another to its partisan wishes, and you permit the kind of concentration of power that can lead to tyranny. So the system the Framers established is utterly incompatible with the idea that sharp partisan divisions could be sufficient to impeach"
    -Joe Biden

    Anyone will to argue with Joe Biden??

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    39

    Why is it that it's ONLY Trump/America haters who come forward with these accusations??

    Your question is flawed. Trump isn't America. The ICIG tasked by law to investigate IC whistleblower's complaints is a Trump appointee who I am sure neither hates Trump or America.

    Why aren't there EVER any Trump voters or supporters who blow the whistle...

    The people blowing the whistle now are Trump appointees and members/past members of the Trump administration. Labeling those who won't commit a crime and lie under oath for Trump as "haters" says more about you than it ever could about anyone else whom you label.

    Surely if President Trump's crimes and incompetence is as blatant as ya'all claim, Shirley a Trump supporter would have come forward.

    They have... they are... and they will.

    Regardless of who comes forward to reveal it, the fact is that Benedict Donald is a criminal and has been for the majority of his life, and you can't truthfully claim that you weren't warned repeatedly. :)

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    43

    because by the very act of doing so, they're no longer considered supporters, and their history is rewritten to accentuate their lack of support (e.g. michael cohen).

    Dead on accurate... like cherry pie with a cherry on top.

    “The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
    ~Orwell, 1984

    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
    ~Orwell, 1984"

  54. [54] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    48

    I can easily postulate a scenario where someone supports President Trump, voted for President Trump, but is required by duty and conscience to report criminal acts by President Trump..

    Me too since it's already happened and still happening.

    Not a SINGLE ONE of President Trump's accusers fit that description...

    You are simply woefully misinformed.

    EVERY accuser has an axe to grind..

    Incorrect.

    EVERY ACCUSER...

    INCORRECT.

    Funny how that is, eh?? :D

    Well, ignorance is definitely bliss so it stands to reason that a misinformed person would think their lack of knowledge would be funny, but then in their blissful condition of not knowing what they didn't know, they wouldn't know any better, would they? :)

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of who comes forward to reveal it, the fact is that Benedict Donald is a criminal and has been for the majority of his life, and you can't truthfully claim that you weren't warned repeatedly. :)

    And yet, ya'all can't prove any crimes...

    To date, President Trump has been exonerated on EVERY accusation...

    Ya'll simply have a crappy track record and you can't say you weren't warned..

    Starting on 9 Nov 2016, ya'all have always lost and ya'all will continue to lose..

    I am so comfortable with my Nov 2020 prediction that I will wager you that President Trump wins re-election..

    If President Trump is NOT re-elected, I will resign from Weigantia..

    If President Trump IS re-elected, YOU resign from Weigantia...

    How confident are ya, Kick?? :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone will to argue with Joe Biden??

    So, apparently, no one has the will to argue with Joe Biden.. :D

    Silence gives assent.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Democrats winning back the White House in the subsequent election will just have to suck it up and take their punishment. :)

    Democrats lost the 2000 election A-because Clinton was term limited and 2-Al Gore was a shitty candidate...

    Bush won IN SPITE of the GOP's overreach on impeachment.. Not because of it..

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction"
    -Joe Biden

    Even Joe Biden says this impeachment is not legitimate..

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Give it time, Michale … the number of congressional Republicans in both houses who jump ship may just surprise you ...

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey Michale! Have you got a link to those Biden quotes? I'd like to read the whole speech .

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Give it time, Michale … the number of congressional Republicans in both houses who jump ship may just surprise you ...

    I have all the time in the world.. Democrats do not.. :D

    They are fighting the clock with the Horowitz report and the Durham report...

    If Dems don't have anything substantial by then, they are sunk..

    Republicans won't come around.. They know that the ONLY end result there can be is that President Trump remains in power...

    They are not going to cross President Trump and have him breathing down their necks for the next 5 years...

    If Dems follow thru with their, they are gonna do it Clinton style...

    A purely partisan faux impeachment with only ONE result..

    They lose.. A little or a lot.. But they still lose..

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey Michale! Have you got a link to those Biden quotes? I'd like to read the whole speech.

    Of course.. I always do..

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bidentext021399.htm

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, I'll take a look later tonight ...

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, I just took a quick peak now and I'm reminded that Biden's senate arias are some of the best political speechifying around.

    I hope everyone takes a look … when you've got a couple or three hours to kill. Heh.

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Heh

    It's clear from Biden's MANY quotes that he believes that impeachment is not valid or legitimate unless it's bipartisan..

    I happen to agree with that...

    Do you???

  66. [66] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've already told you that I do.

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    55

    And yet, ya'all can't prove any crimes...

    Like I said, ignorance is bliss.

    I am so comfortable with my Nov 2020 prediction that I will wager you that President Trump wins re-election..

    Oh, Mike. I'll do you a really big favor and let you in on a huge secret, and by "secret," I mean near everyone with even a scintilla of knowledge is already well aware:

    This isn't about you, Mike.

    If President Trump is NOT re-elected, I will resign from Weigantia..

    Feel free to come and go as you please; I couldn't care less, and -- obviously -- everything in Weigantia is not about you.

    If President Trump IS re-elected, YOU resign from Weigantia...

    You're so transparent and selfish, Mike. Might I suggest that you take that wish in one hand and take a shit in the other and see which one gets full first.

    How confident are ya, Kick?? :D

    Confident enough to be able to read between the lines of those blissfully ignorant types who are foolish enough to entertain the utter nonsensical notion that everything does or should be revolving around them. :)

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another great quote..

    "There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment substantially supported by one of our major political parties and largely opposed by the other. Such an impeachment would lack legitimacy, would produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come. And will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions … We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people."

    Funny how Democrats are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they stated when Clinton was impeached..

    Thereby CONFIRMING beyond all doubt that this is NOTHING but a -D vs -R issue..

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    57

    Democrats lost the 2000 election A-because Clinton was term limited and 2-Al Gore was a shitty candidate...

    Bush won IN SPITE of the GOP's overreach on impeachment.. Not because of it..

    Opinions are like asshats.

    Also, your newfound "love and mercy" for Bubba is quite touching *shakes head* although flies squarely in the face of your prior cries of "Bubba and the rapes." So you'll have to excuse those of us with the ability to read, comprehend, and retain the written word for not falling for your repetitive though unmistakable bullstench du jour. :)

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, Mike. I'll do you a really big favor and let you in on a huge secret, and by "secret," I mean near everyone with even a scintilla of knowledge is already well aware:

    This isn't about you, Mike.

    In other words, you are not sure of your claim that Trump will NOT be re-elected and you don't want to lose..

    Hay.. I can understand that.. It's kewl.. :D

    Confident enough to be able to read between the lines of those blissfully ignorant types who are foolish enough to entertain the utter nonsensical notion that everything does or should be revolving around them. :)

    Yea, I seem to recall you saying something similar before the 2016 elections.. :D

    You lost in Pennsylvania, you lost in Florida and you lost Nationally..

    So, it seems clear that ya are on a losing streak as President Trump is STILL your president...

    I understand your fear of taking the wager..

    It's OK... :D

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Opinions are like asshats.

    And you have plenty of them.. :D

    I have the FACTS...

    ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that the GOP payed a VERY steep price when they overreached during the Clinton Administration.

    Democrats are ignoring the mistakes of history and are hell-bent on repeating those mistakes for themselves..

    More power to them.. It makes me no never mind..

    I LOVE gloating.. ;D Ya'all and Democrats will give me PLENTY of reasons to gloat.. :D

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    70

    In other words, you are not sure of your claim that Trump will NOT be re-elected and you don't want to lose..

    I made no such claim, and also, it's not an altogether difficult concept to grasp, Mike: It's not about me either.

    Hay.. I can understand that.. It's kewl.. :D

    Your repeated efforts to invent shit on others' behalf and just type it out as if that will magically make it a fact is ample proof that you understand precious little.

    Yea, I seem to recall you saying something similar before the 2016 elections.. :D

    You seem to recall lots of things that never happened... repeatedly... near daily... you just recall all kinds of fictional things that no one ever said.

    You lost in Pennsylvania, you lost in Florida and you lost Nationally..

    You seem incapable of grasping the elementary concept that everything is not about you or anyone else.

    I understand your fear of taking the wager..

    You seem to be equating "fear" with others not giving a shit and the fact that everything is not about you, Mike... it's not, you know. :)

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it seems that with impeachment, polls are back in vogue again..

    Never mind that polls were shit during the 2016 election..

    But hay.. OK..

    Let's look at polls..

    Trump Job Approval Higher Than Obama's at Same Time in Presidency
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_vs_president_obama_job_approval.html

    :D

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    You seem to be equating "fear" with others not giving a shit and the fact that everything is not about you, Mike... it's not, you know. :)

    Of course it's not about me..

    It's about President Trump winning re-election..

    And your deflection in trying to make it about me because you can't handle that President Trump is going to be your president until Jan of 2025... :D

    Hell the majority of Weigantians know that President Trump is going to win re-election.. :D

    I understand your fear of the wager.. 's OK...

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    71

    ANYONE with more than 2 brain cells to rub together knows that the GOP payed a VERY steep price when they overreached during the Clinton Administration.

    You're missing the point that ANYONE with a single brain cell wouldn't make the false equivalency at the outset.

    Democrats are ignoring the mistakes of history and are hell-bent on repeating those mistakes for themselves..

    False equivalency, Mike. Also, you're the one who self-described as "not a history buff"... so anyone with a single brain cell would have been forewarned not to put any credence into any of your repeated false equivalencies regarding history.

    More power to them.. It makes me no never mind..

    Your incessant whiny spamming posts say otherwise.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're missing the point that ANYONE with a single brain cell wouldn't make the false equivalency at the outset.

    Do you have any FACTS to support it's a false equivalency?? No, of course you don'..

    It's a dead on ballz accurate equivalency to those who actually know the FACTS and not just Democrat propaganda..

    False equivalency

    Yes, you keep saying that, Kick... But it's just you saying it.. It doesn't mean anything unless you have FACTS to back it up.. Which you never do..

    Mike

    I'de prefer Michale, if it's all the same to you..

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    74

    Of course it's not about me..

    Nice admission. Keep that in mind, can you?

    And your deflection in trying to make it about me because you can't handle that President Trump is going to be your president until Jan of 2025... :D

    You already made it about you with your wager.

    Hell the majority of Weigantians know that President Trump is going to win re-election.. :D

    Hell, you claim to read the majority of Weigantians' minds!

    I understand your fear of the wager.. 's OK...

    I understand your repetitive and skeevy need to make the election and all manner of things about yourself, but the election nor Weigantia nor my choices or anyone else's choices are yours to control... that's the part you can't seem to grasp. :)

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    You already made it about you with your wager.

    The wager is about President Trump... Your trying to deflect it and make it about me simply covers up the fact that you do not have the strength of your convictions..

    I have no such weakness..

    Hell, you claim to read the majority of Weigantians' minds!

    I don't need to.. They have stated such...

    I understand your repetitive and skeevy need to make the election and all manner of things about yourself, but the election nor Weigantia nor my choices or anyone else's choices are yours to control... that's the part you can't seem to grasp. :)

    And, once again, a deflection.. I understand your fear... No need to wallow in it..

    :D

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michael
    76

    Do you have any FACTS to support it's a false equivalency?? No, of course you don'..

    Yes, but I'm well aware it'll do no good... so why bother? I'll give you the glaringly obvious facts that Clinton's actions betrayed his wife and daughter and those of a young woman who fell in love with him while Trump has used the power of the office and taxpayers' money and the full weight of the most sacred office in the United States in order to coerce a multiple foreign leaders to assist him in undermining our democracy and has threatened our national security for his own personal benefit rather than for the public good. Clinton violated his marriage oath while Trump violated his oath of the office of the presidency.

    Enough said.

    It's a dead on ballz accurate equivalency to those who actually know the FACTS and not just Democrat propaganda..

    Trump's public requests, admissions, and promises to do it again aren't propaganda. :)

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, but I'm well aware it'll do no good... so why bother? I'll give you the glaringly obvious facts that Clinton's actions betrayed his wife and daughter and those of a young woman who fell in love with him while Trump has used the power of the office and taxpayers' money and the full weight of the most sacred office in the United States in order to coerce a multiple foreign leaders to assist him in undermining our democracy and has threatened our national security for his own personal benefit rather than for the public good. Clinton violated his marriage oath while Trump violated his oath of the office of the presidency.

    Enough said.

    All those are distinctions, not differences..

    Trump's public requests, admissions, and promises to do it again aren't propaganda. :)

    The propaganda comes in when Democrats spin them to be something they are not..

  81. [81] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I love days like this...days where in the middle of your BS and bluster, you decide to take a break from broadcasting the propaganda and decide to drop a truth bomb that eviscerates the notion that you honestly believe the drivel that you spew daily and that you do recognize the truth about Trump!

    Republicans won't come around.. They know that the ONLY end result there can be is that President Trump remains in power...

    They are not going to cross President Trump and have him breathing down their necks for the next 5 years...

    So the truth really does NOT matter here; Republicans must side with Trump because HE is ALL that matters! And best of all....YOU KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH! THESE ARE YOUR WORDS!

    Republicans are not allowed to have opinions of their own, they must claim to share Trump’s opinion or face his wrath!

    What happens when Republicans actually look closely at the evidence? Look no further than Rep. Justin Amash — an ultra-conservative who made the mistake of trusting Trump’s claims that the Mueller Report had fully exonerated him, but chose to read it for himself. He ignored Trump telling Republicans that it is a waste of time to read ANYTHING when you already know how it ends! And what did Rep. Amash discover when he read the Mueller report? That his fellow Republicans COULD NOT risk reading the report, or else they would be forced to speak out against Trump because there is no way to spin the truth THAT much!

    Republicans won't come around.. They know that the ONLY end result there can be is that President Trump remains in power...

    They are not going to cross President Trump and have him breathing down their necks for the next 5 years...

    Michale can tell the truth!!! And those of us here will all be able to look back on this historical day and say with pride, “I was there!”

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    So the truth really does NOT matter here; Republicans must side with Trump because HE is ALL that matters! And best of all....YOU KNOW THIS TO BE THE TRUTH! THESE ARE YOUR WORDS!

    No, YOUR truth doesn't matter here...

    That's the entire point..

    YOUR "truth" is that President Trump MUST be impeached even before he took office..

    YOUR "truth" is that you MUST nullify a free, fair, legal, democratic and CONSTITUTIONAL election..

    That's why I don't deal in ANY truth... Because truth is subjective and you are a slave to the Democrat Party so THEIR "truth" is YOUR "truth"..

    Joe Biden even admitted it..

    Democrats are all about "truth"..

    I am all about FACTS...

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    The wager is about President Trump... Your trying to deflect it and make it about me simply covers up the fact that you do not have the strength of your convictions..

    Your made up statements on behalf of anyone/everyone else do not in any way constitute "convictions" on the part of anyone/everyone else. Also, the election is about President Trump, but the wager you attempted to make based on your false statement on my behalf was all about you leaving Weigantia if Trump loses and your wish for me to leave if he wins. You made it about yourself at the outset, and I simply don't care whether you leave or not.

    I have no such weakness..

    It's infinitely easy to make up endless baseless claims regarding what you claim others' said. It's not a weakness on anyone's part but more like a sickness and/or a peevish neediness on your part.

    I don't need to.. They have stated such...

    Prove it. Good luck.

    Silence does not give assent to your bullstench and never will. Besides, I think people just generally ignore you, but you would be wise not to equate boredom with fear either.

    Done with this subject. :)

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prove it. Good luck.

    I don't need to prove it.. They have said it..

    Done with this subject. :)

    Of course you are.. :D

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Turkey just attacked an area where US Special Forces were located in Syria “accidentally”. I’m sure Trump will apologize for the Special Forces screwing up the agreed upon genocide of the Kurdish people.

    And before anyone tries to speak in favor of the Kurds, just remember this...during WW2 they did not bother to storm the beaches of Normandy with us!

    Choke on that historical fact for a while! Of course, now that I am thinking about it, neither did Turkey. In fact, only two other countries showed up that day — yes, Germany was technically there, but....

    I can only imagine what Israel must be thinking now that they have learned Trump’s criteria for whether or not the US will defend our “allies”. Canada and Great Britain are all smiles, though!

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how you didn't care about the Kurds when Odumbo was stabbing them in the back, eh?

    So, the FACTS clearly show that you don't really care about the Kurds.. Yer just lying so you can beat on President Trump some more..

    :eyeroll:

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    81

    This!

    Republicans won't come around.. They know that the ONLY end result there can be is that President Trump remains in power...

    They are not going to cross President Trump and have him breathing down their necks for the next 5 years... ~ Mike

    Michale can tell the truth!!! And those of us here will all be able to look back on this historical day and say with pride, “I was there!”

    Mike kind of resembles his remarks about others in that he'll go to his grave claiming everyone else is a "party slave" while he deliriously genuflects at the feet of the cult of personality and demands the fealty of every member of the GOP to His Orange Worship.

    It's hysterical to watch. :)

  88. [88] 
    dsws wrote:

    As I read the Constitution, the House could impeach a member of Congress, and the Senate could try them. There's not much reason for them to do it that way, because each house can expel a member without involving the other. But I don't see anything in the Constitution to stop them from it, if a majority but less than two thirds of the House favored removal of one of their own, or if the House wanted to give the Senate a nudge to start proceedings against a senator.

  89. [89] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    That's why I don't deal in ANY truth...

    Ain’t that the TRUTH!!!

    So allow me to correct my post by saying:

    I love days like this...days where in the middle of your BS and bluster, you decide to take a break from broadcasting the propaganda and decide to drop a FACT bomb that eviscerates the notion that you honestly believe the drivel that you spew daily and that you do recognize the facts about Trump!

    Republicans won't come around.. They know that the ONLY end result there can be is that President Trump remains in power...

    They are not going to cross President Trump and have him breathing down their necks for the next 5 years...

    So the FACTS really do NOT matter here; Republicans must side with Trump because HE is ALL that matters! And best of all....YOU KNOW THIS TO BE THE FACT! THESE ARE YOUR WORDS!

    Republicans are not allowed to have opinions of their own, they must claim to share Trump’s opinion or face his wrath!

    What happens when Republicans actually look closely at the evidence? Look no further than Rep. Justin Amash — an ultra-conservative who made the mistake of trusting Trump’s claims that the Mueller Report had fully exonerated him, but chose to read it for himself. He ignored Trump telling Republicans that it is a waste of time to read ANYTHING when you already know how it ends! And what did Rep. Amash discover when he read the Mueller report? That his fellow Republicans COULD NOT risk reading the report, or else they would be forced to speak out against Trump because there is no way to spin the facts THAT much!

    Republicans won't come around.. They know that the ONLY end result there can be is that President Trump remains in power...

    They are not going to cross President Trump and have him breathing down their necks for the next 5 years...

    Michale does know what a FACT is!! And those of us here will all be able to look back on this historical day and say with pride, “I was there!”

    Fixed it for ya.

    Strange that our judicial system does not require those testifying to swear to tell the facts...

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    89

    Strange that our judicial system does not require those testifying to swear to tell the facts...

    You'll just confuse him with the truth about "truth," Russ, you know: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... where "truth" is defined as your recollection in accordance with fact and reality without leaving out significant details or embellishing with superfluous bullshit. :)

  91. [91] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Funny how you didn't care about the Kurds when Odumbo was stabbing them in the back, eh?

    So, the FACTS clearly show that you don't really care about the Kurds.. Yer just lying so you can beat on President Trump some more..

    Funny, just this past Tuesday you were thanking me for stating Obama did screw over the Kurds...just like Trump was doing!

    Michale wrote:

    I gotta disagree with you, Obama did screw over the Kurds — even if that was not his intended goal for the choice he made.

    Thank you, Russ...

    Remind me again — in your bubble of existence — since what you said was not TRUE, do you still consider it a FACT?

  92. [92] 
    TheStig wrote:

    With apologies to little red haired orphan girls without irises everywhere....

    Leapin’ Lizards!

    Whose career seems on the rocks?
    The guy who ain’t got any locks
    Who can it be?
    It’s Rudy Giuliani

    He and Donald make a pair
    They never take the slightest care
    Oy Vey says me!
    That Rudy Giuliani

    Bug eyes, always on the go
    Quite a store of bullshit handy
    What’s up? Is he snortin’ blow?
    You don’t wanna know - barf bag handy?

    Always got that creepy smile
    Looks better on a crocodile
    Try not to be
    Like Rudy Giuliani

    Leapin’ Lizards!
    Leapin’ Lizards!
    All together now

    Whose career seems on the rocks?
    The guy who ain’t got any locks
    Who can it be?
    It’s Rudy Giuliani

  93. [93] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    I just LOVE days like today! You can just feel his panic as he realizes that he just exposed his disinformation machine posts for what they truly...I mean, for what they FACTUALLY are — propaganda that he doesn’t even believe in!

    He knows Trump is a criminal. He knows Trump has broken countless laws that warrant his impeachment And he openly stated that the Republicans are forced to support Trump not because it is the right thing to do, but out of fear!

    Fact: After Michale is exposed, it was announced that Shep Smith has resigned from Fox News!

    Don’t know if the two are related, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a fact!

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    On October 3, 2019, counsel for Parnas and Fruman sent a letter to Congress requesting additional time and confirming that "Messrs. Parnas and Fruman assisted Mr. Giuliani in connection with his representation of President Trump."

    https://abovethelaw.com/2019/10/john-dowd-writes-letter-in-comic-sans-because-hes-through-pretending-hes-not-a-clown/

    Oh, my but that's a written admission that's going to come back to bite them all in their asses. They requested additional time, then had lunch with Rudy, and then bought one-way tickets out of the United States. Yeah, nothing suspicious about that at all. ;)

    And on top of everything else... the letter delivered to Congress was written in the font "Comic Sans"! Comic Sans! The whole thing is hysterical... yes, pun intended! :)

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    92

    Heh!

    I would wager that Rudy Gee is about to meet the bottom of a bus. Rudy, meet bus.

    "Leapin’ Lizards!"

    Not after he meets the bus, he won't be, TS.
    He'll be "Rudy Roadkill"!

    Question: And how exactly will we know out of all that roadkill which one is Rudy?

    Answer: There won't be any skid marks! ;)

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    93

    I just LOVE days like today! You can just feel his panic as he realizes that he just exposed his disinformation machine posts for what they truly...I mean, for what they FACTUALLY are — propaganda that he doesn’t even believe in!

    Also, his newly found sympathy for "Bubba" is so "touching, not touching" juxtaposed against his contempt for "Bubba and the rapes." *shakes head*

    He knows Trump is a criminal. He knows Trump has broken countless laws that warrant his impeachment And he openly stated that the Republicans are forced to support Trump not because it is the right thing to do, but out of fear!

    The words "Party slaves" comes to mind... but not even Party loyalty to the GOP, mind you, slavery to a tyrant in the form of Hair Dick Tater!

    And talk about hate!? Have you seen the mindless effing drones who call themselves "patriots" chanting "lock him up" about a Vice President of the United States at the suggestion of the president's skeevy spawn?

    Yes, sir: "Lock him up!" Wouldn't it be just a shame if that actually happened to... say... the President's campaign manager and his fixer and several people associated with Trump... oh, wait!

  97. [97] 
    dsws wrote:

    The evidence already presented to the public is so damning that it's pretty obvious that impeachment should at least be considered at this point, which means voting to do so is probably not going to cause much political harm.

    You seem to be assuming that the public is paying attention. Following what's going on in politics is slightly less popular than following what's going on in professional lacrosse. Normal people want politics to go away and leave them alone. They'll vote (only in presidential election years), if they can feel as though they're participating in a civic ritual that gives them a nice rush of patriotism. If one side presents evidence of wrongdoing, and the* other side presents patently unjustified outrage about completely bogus accusations, both sides are just convincing normal people that they want to tune out. When it comes to reaching normal people, putting something in the politics section of the New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal, or both, is about as effective as reading it aloud to Schrödinger's cat.

    *The other side, not another side. The fact that there are only two sides means we need to change the voting system. Every interesting issue has at least three sides, but a winner-take-all plurality voting system guarantees that there will be exactly two political parties.

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    dsws
    97

    *The other side, not another side. The fact that there are only two sides means we need to change the voting system.

    There aren't "only two sides." There are several political parties but two that dominate at the ballot box.

    Every interesting issue has at least three sides, but a winner-take-all plurality voting system guarantees that there will be exactly two political parties.

    Wow! Then it's a good thing the Presidency is decided by that "winner-take-all" voting system as outlined in the United States Constitution... oh, wait!

    It's like you simply cannot divest yourself of the ridiculous notion that everyone in America believes exactly what you do... when nothing could be further from the truth! Let it go; you should allow yourself to experience how freeing it can be if you stop all the assuming. :)

  99. [99] 
    dsws wrote:

    I never said that winner-take-all plurality voting is specified in the Constitution. It isn't. Article I section 4: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

    Congress could start having the House chosen by some system of proportional representation, and the Senate chosen by instant-runoff voting i.e. majority instead of plurality.

  100. [100] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @dan,

    most people are morons, and professional lacrosse is kinda cool.

Comments for this article are closed.