icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 21,134
Impeachment not going so well?
- Thread starter 1Diver2
- Start date
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Writing for RealClearPolitics.com, Betsy McCaughey says that Adam Schiff does NOT want whistleblower Eric Ciaramella testifying in any U.S. Senate impeachment trial, because no matter how such a trial proceeds, Schiff looks bad!
To dignify Ciaramella with the term "whistleblower" misrepresents what he allegedly did. Let's say he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. He had no firsthand knowledge of Trump's controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in his complaint begins with "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," or "multiple officials told me" or "officials with direct knowledge informed me." Just gossip. He never names any sources. And yet, Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers' frontman.
Compare him to real whistleblowers, like Kansas Transportation Safety Administration official, Jay Brainard, who blew the whistle warning that the TSA is lowering metal detector sensitivity levels to shorten airport lines. He went on TV to warn against sacrificing safety for expedience. Similarly, Boeing'e Ed Pierson is blowing the whistle against the company for overworking assembly line employees, leading to production errors that could cause 737 Max planes to malfunction or crash.
Real whistleblowers speak from firsthand knowledge and don't hide their identities. They muster the courage to expose dangers or abuses that would otherwise go unreported. During the House impeachment hearings, Schiff repeatedly cracked his gavel to silence questions from Republicans about the whistleblower. Truth is, Schiff was protecting himself. Even now, if the whistleblower talks, details of Schiff's role in launching the complaint may come out.
What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump's call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff's staff met with Ciaramella, who is a friend and co-worker of Misko's in the intelligence community. Schiff's staff gave Ciaramella "guidance" on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will very likely divulge more. Schiff concealed these dealings until The New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld documents about aiding the whistleblower to House investigators.
The whistleblower filed his complaint with Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, concealing that he'd met with Schiff's staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise. Even worse, Schiff obscured how the whistleblower complaint ever saw the light of day. The big question is WHY Atkinson deemed the complaint "credible" enough to be reported to Congress -- the trigger required for Schiff to launch an impeachment investigation.
By concealing testimony, Schiff is propping up what Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel calls the whistleblower's "hearsay report" and keeping Schiff's own role in launching the complaint under wraps. But the shameful truth about Schiff's hoax will likely be uncovered in the e-mails that Judicial Watch is seeking. Sadly, it's now too late to spare the nation from impeachment.
To dignify Ciaramella with the term "whistleblower" misrepresents what he allegedly did. Let's say he filed what is technically called a whistleblower complaint. He had no firsthand knowledge of Trump's controversial July 25 phone call or motivations. Every allegation in his complaint begins with "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," or "multiple officials told me" or "officials with direct knowledge informed me." Just gossip. He never names any sources. And yet, Ciaramella acted as the anti-Trumpers' frontman.
Compare him to real whistleblowers, like Kansas Transportation Safety Administration official, Jay Brainard, who blew the whistle warning that the TSA is lowering metal detector sensitivity levels to shorten airport lines. He went on TV to warn against sacrificing safety for expedience. Similarly, Boeing'e Ed Pierson is blowing the whistle against the company for overworking assembly line employees, leading to production errors that could cause 737 Max planes to malfunction or crash.
Real whistleblowers speak from firsthand knowledge and don't hide their identities. They muster the courage to expose dangers or abuses that would otherwise go unreported. During the House impeachment hearings, Schiff repeatedly cracked his gavel to silence questions from Republicans about the whistleblower. Truth is, Schiff was protecting himself. Even now, if the whistleblower talks, details of Schiff's role in launching the complaint may come out.
What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump's call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff's staff met with Ciaramella, who is a friend and co-worker of Misko's in the intelligence community. Schiff's staff gave Ciaramella "guidance" on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will very likely divulge more. Schiff concealed these dealings until The New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld documents about aiding the whistleblower to House investigators.
The whistleblower filed his complaint with Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, concealing that he'd met with Schiff's staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise. Even worse, Schiff obscured how the whistleblower complaint ever saw the light of day. The big question is WHY Atkinson deemed the complaint "credible" enough to be reported to Congress -- the trigger required for Schiff to launch an impeachment investigation.
By concealing testimony, Schiff is propping up what Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel calls the whistleblower's "hearsay report" and keeping Schiff's own role in launching the complaint under wraps. But the shameful truth about Schiff's hoax will likely be uncovered in the e-mails that Judicial Watch is seeking. Sadly, it's now too late to spare the nation from impeachment.
jp55665566
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2018
- Posts
- 4,256
God, I would LOVE to see Schiff and the "whistle-blower" called to testify in a Senate trial.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
jp55665566 writes: "God, I would LOVE to see Schiff and the "whistle-blower" called to testify in a Senate trial."
That's EXACTLY what the Democratic Party does NOT want to see happen, and one of the reasons why the Dems are no longer all that interested in seeing a U.S. Senate trial play out for the nation's attention to focus upon!
Likewise, I don't think that U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is AT ALL happy with the House prosecution efforts, and basically wants an entirely NEW case to be made using entirely NEW witnesses!
But Democrats DON'T want those new witnesses to include Adam Schiff, his hand-picked whistleblower, OR Joe & Hunter Biden to testify, as NONE of those people serve the narrative that the Democrats have tried to paint, and will instead deeply embarrass their party and end-up benefitting Trump's re-election!
Chances are, Nancy Pelosi will try and pretend that it's all over, and that no Senate trial is necessary, and admit that her party spent millions of dollars pushing something that they NEVER intended to pursue to its conclusion!
That's EXACTLY what the Democratic Party does NOT want to see happen, and one of the reasons why the Dems are no longer all that interested in seeing a U.S. Senate trial play out for the nation's attention to focus upon!
Likewise, I don't think that U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is AT ALL happy with the House prosecution efforts, and basically wants an entirely NEW case to be made using entirely NEW witnesses!
But Democrats DON'T want those new witnesses to include Adam Schiff, his hand-picked whistleblower, OR Joe & Hunter Biden to testify, as NONE of those people serve the narrative that the Democrats have tried to paint, and will instead deeply embarrass their party and end-up benefitting Trump's re-election!
Chances are, Nancy Pelosi will try and pretend that it's all over, and that no Senate trial is necessary, and admit that her party spent millions of dollars pushing something that they NEVER intended to pursue to its conclusion!
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Scott Jennings from CNN writes that:
Mitch McConnell just ate Pelosi and Schumer's lunch
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer have been bested by Mitch McConnell yet again. The two Democrats attempted to create impeachment leverage where none existed by withholding the Articles of Impeachment passed last month against President Donald Trump.
But like your Aunt Frieda threatening not to bring her awful fruitcake to Christmas Dinner, their plan didn't work. Nobody wanted it in the first place. McConnell won this round against his Keystone Cops opposition because he has something Schumer and Pelosi don't: a reasonable argument.
The Senate majority leader has insisted from the beginning that if the House were to impeach Trump, the Senate should treat him the same way it treated Bill Clinton in 1998. So, McConnell has steadfastly argued for the same rules package that passed the Senate 100-0 in the Clinton iteration. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" makes a pretty sensible argument.
The Democrats have raged against his position. This is different, they say. They are right -- this is different. The articles of impeachment against Clinton were bipartisan, and the ones against Trump aren't.
Given the hyper partisan nature of this impeachment against Trump, McConnell's offer for the Clinton rules should have been greeted by Democrats with open arms. But instead they have demanded to treat a Republican president different from the way a Democratic president was treated not so long ago under the guise of producing a fair trial.
It's the height of hypocrisy for Schumer to lead this charge. He used his impeachment vote in his 1998 Senate campaign as a political weapon, promising donors and voters that supporting him would lead to Clinton's acquittal. In fact, some might even call what Schumer did a quid pro quo -- you support me, and I'll vote to acquit your president. Today, he tears into McConnell on a near daily basis for not being an impartial juror. What a joke. Schumer voted for the Clinton rules package back then and opposes it now because, well ... I guess opposing Donald Trump is a helluva drug.
Iny any case, the days of Nancy Pelosi being hailed as some next-level genius impeachment strategist I guess will have to come to an end for the liberal pundit industry. Her plan to withhold the articles of impeachment to create that "leverage" over Mitch McConnell have failed spectacularly.
Mitch McConnell just ate Pelosi and Schumer's lunch
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer have been bested by Mitch McConnell yet again. The two Democrats attempted to create impeachment leverage where none existed by withholding the Articles of Impeachment passed last month against President Donald Trump.
But like your Aunt Frieda threatening not to bring her awful fruitcake to Christmas Dinner, their plan didn't work. Nobody wanted it in the first place. McConnell won this round against his Keystone Cops opposition because he has something Schumer and Pelosi don't: a reasonable argument.
The Senate majority leader has insisted from the beginning that if the House were to impeach Trump, the Senate should treat him the same way it treated Bill Clinton in 1998. So, McConnell has steadfastly argued for the same rules package that passed the Senate 100-0 in the Clinton iteration. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" makes a pretty sensible argument.
The Democrats have raged against his position. This is different, they say. They are right -- this is different. The articles of impeachment against Clinton were bipartisan, and the ones against Trump aren't.
Given the hyper partisan nature of this impeachment against Trump, McConnell's offer for the Clinton rules should have been greeted by Democrats with open arms. But instead they have demanded to treat a Republican president different from the way a Democratic president was treated not so long ago under the guise of producing a fair trial.
It's the height of hypocrisy for Schumer to lead this charge. He used his impeachment vote in his 1998 Senate campaign as a political weapon, promising donors and voters that supporting him would lead to Clinton's acquittal. In fact, some might even call what Schumer did a quid pro quo -- you support me, and I'll vote to acquit your president. Today, he tears into McConnell on a near daily basis for not being an impartial juror. What a joke. Schumer voted for the Clinton rules package back then and opposes it now because, well ... I guess opposing Donald Trump is a helluva drug.
Iny any case, the days of Nancy Pelosi being hailed as some next-level genius impeachment strategist I guess will have to come to an end for the liberal pundit industry. Her plan to withhold the articles of impeachment to create that "leverage" over Mitch McConnell have failed spectacularly.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 21,134
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Mitch McConnell says the U.S. Senate will follow the precedent established by the trial of President Clinton 20 years ago.
Clinton's trial was divided into pieces. The Senate agreed unanimously to begin with a briefing, opening arguments, questions from senators, and a vote to dismiss. Whether to hear witnesses or introduce additional evidence were questions decided later. "That was the unanimous bipartisan precedent from 1999," McConnell said. "Put first things first, lay the bipartisan groundwork, and leave mid-trial questions to the middle of the trial."
The arrangement satisfied Chuck Schumer back when he was a recently elected junior senator from New York. Funny how times change. Now Senate minority leader, and looking to damage Republicans in a presidential election year, Schumer demanded that McConnell call witnesses and ask for additional documents at the outset of the proceedings. Pelosi followed his cues. After the House impeached Trump on December 18, Pelosi said she wouldn't transmit the articles of impeachment until McConnell gave in to Schumer's demands.
McConnell refused. He continued to point to the bipartisanship of the Clinton era. "That Senate trial was good enough for President Clinton," he said on January 6. "So it ought to be good enough for President Trump." The following day, McConnell ridiculed the idea that Pelosi had "leverage" over the Senate. They don't take orders from her.
The reliance on precedent is one of McConnell's most effective strategies. In 2016 he invoked the "Biden rule" to block confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, until after the election. The following spring, when Senate Republicans voted to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, McConnell noted that former majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, had done the same for lower-court nominees in 2013.
Pelosi and Schumer then tried to up the pressure on Republican senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney. The goal: drive them to break from McConnell. It didn't work. Republicans remained unified. Pelosi's gambit went nowhere. Democratic senators, from Dianne Feinstein to Doug Jones, said it was time for the trial to begin. Several Democratic congressmen agreed. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it was "time to send the impeachment to the Senate." Smith is one of Pelosi's favorites—or used to be.
The chances that the House would strong arm the Senate into adopting Schumer's rules were never good - they shrank to zero once Democrats and media personalities began questioning Pelosi's tactics. Nancy is an example of what NOT to do. Since announcing the impeachment inquiry in September, she has seen independents turn against it, Trump's numbers rise, a House Democrat switch parties, and several Democrats join Republicans to vote against one or both of the articles of impeachment. Now her friends and lieutenants question her judgment in public. Pelosi's reputation as a "master strategist" is toast. It's been reported that she got the idea for withholding the articles from an interview with John Dean on CNN. Dean once gave legal advice to Richard Nixon. And look what happened to him.
Clinton's trial was divided into pieces. The Senate agreed unanimously to begin with a briefing, opening arguments, questions from senators, and a vote to dismiss. Whether to hear witnesses or introduce additional evidence were questions decided later. "That was the unanimous bipartisan precedent from 1999," McConnell said. "Put first things first, lay the bipartisan groundwork, and leave mid-trial questions to the middle of the trial."
The arrangement satisfied Chuck Schumer back when he was a recently elected junior senator from New York. Funny how times change. Now Senate minority leader, and looking to damage Republicans in a presidential election year, Schumer demanded that McConnell call witnesses and ask for additional documents at the outset of the proceedings. Pelosi followed his cues. After the House impeached Trump on December 18, Pelosi said she wouldn't transmit the articles of impeachment until McConnell gave in to Schumer's demands.
McConnell refused. He continued to point to the bipartisanship of the Clinton era. "That Senate trial was good enough for President Clinton," he said on January 6. "So it ought to be good enough for President Trump." The following day, McConnell ridiculed the idea that Pelosi had "leverage" over the Senate. They don't take orders from her.
The reliance on precedent is one of McConnell's most effective strategies. In 2016 he invoked the "Biden rule" to block confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, until after the election. The following spring, when Senate Republicans voted to end the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, McConnell noted that former majority leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, had done the same for lower-court nominees in 2013.
Pelosi and Schumer then tried to up the pressure on Republican senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney. The goal: drive them to break from McConnell. It didn't work. Republicans remained unified. Pelosi's gambit went nowhere. Democratic senators, from Dianne Feinstein to Doug Jones, said it was time for the trial to begin. Several Democratic congressmen agreed. Adam Smith, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said it was "time to send the impeachment to the Senate." Smith is one of Pelosi's favorites—or used to be.
The chances that the House would strong arm the Senate into adopting Schumer's rules were never good - they shrank to zero once Democrats and media personalities began questioning Pelosi's tactics. Nancy is an example of what NOT to do. Since announcing the impeachment inquiry in September, she has seen independents turn against it, Trump's numbers rise, a House Democrat switch parties, and several Democrats join Republicans to vote against one or both of the articles of impeachment. Now her friends and lieutenants question her judgment in public. Pelosi's reputation as a "master strategist" is toast. It's been reported that she got the idea for withholding the articles from an interview with John Dean on CNN. Dean once gave legal advice to Richard Nixon. And look what happened to him.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Friday that her House members would vote on a resolution this coming week to name who its impeachment managers will be, a move that might possibly trigger the delivery of impeachment articles to the Senate to begin the trial.
Pelosi announced that Democrats will hold a closed-door caucus-meeting on Tuesday morning. The Speaker said she was no longer in a hurry to forward impeachment articles to the U.S. Senate after learning that the House of Representatives won't be in a position to tell that governing body what to do!
"The president is impeached for life, regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell," she said. "He'll be just like Bill Clinton - and there is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that." She then added: "the Senate running impeachment is as upsetting as are the Second Amendment & the electoral college!"
The Speaker was very unhappy to learn that the U.S. Constitution doesn't demand that an impeached president can't run for re-election, saying: "well, that was a huge waste of time, then!" Responding to the Trump's criticism of her speakership in a FOX News interview on Friday, Pelosi responded: "every knock from him is a boost," adding that: "we House Democrats all think that he's a big stupid-head!"
Pelosi announced that Democrats will hold a closed-door caucus-meeting on Tuesday morning. The Speaker said she was no longer in a hurry to forward impeachment articles to the U.S. Senate after learning that the House of Representatives won't be in a position to tell that governing body what to do!
"The president is impeached for life, regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell," she said. "He'll be just like Bill Clinton - and there is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that." She then added: "the Senate running impeachment is as upsetting as are the Second Amendment & the electoral college!"
The Speaker was very unhappy to learn that the U.S. Constitution doesn't demand that an impeached president can't run for re-election, saying: "well, that was a huge waste of time, then!" Responding to the Trump's criticism of her speakership in a FOX News interview on Friday, Pelosi responded: "every knock from him is a boost," adding that: "we House Democrats all think that he's a big stupid-head!"
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
phrodeau writes: "Nobody buys your fake news and false history any more."
Yes, phrodeau - I know - you ONLY believe something if you see it first on CNN - meanwhile, Keith Naughton just posted this on The Hill web-site:
While the conflict with Iran has recently led the news, for the previous five months the big story was IMPEACHMENT! Left-leaning pundits and hardcore Democrats were certain that it was going to destroy President Donald Trump — but the polling numbers say something very different: Impeachment has changed nothing.
Trump’s RealClearPolitics approval average has gone from 43.8 percent at the end of July to 45.2 percent today. His polling average against his top rival (former Vice President Joe Biden) has improved slightly. These numbers do NOT mean that impeachment has benefited Trump; only that it hasn't hurt him! How can this possibly be the case if impeachment is the towering moral test breathlessly covered day after day?
Simple: The public views other issues as more important.
Politico and Morning Consult found in November that impeachment was next to last on issues of importance for the public — and there is very little likelihood that that will change. Since Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the start of the impeachment process, Trump has negotiated a trade deal with China, household income is rising, unemployment remains low, and the stock market has climbed nearly 30 percent this past year!
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) claimed that the Iran crisis was engineered by Trump to distract from impeachment, but the fact is that impeachment is not — and has NEVER been — a serious priority for the American public.
Impeachment is and has always been about satisfying the Democratic voter base (who hate Trump) - Democrats disapprove of Trump by an average of 80 percent. On the economy — Trump’s best issue — Trump’s Democratic disapproval is still 67 percent. Anything that Trump does will be opposed, and any action against Trump will be supported.
Impeachment is only going to get worse as an issue for the Democrats.
Everybody now acknowledges that Trump is NOT going to be removed from office, no matter HOW the senate trial proceeds, Trump will be acquitted, and those many voters on the fence about Trump will consider impeachment to have been a massive waste of time. The Democrats spent a fortune trying to make it happen! Some are already talking about doing it again! They're only damaging their party's credibility while firing up Trump's base. This is NOT going to end well for Joe Biden & his party of failure.
Yes, phrodeau - I know - you ONLY believe something if you see it first on CNN - meanwhile, Keith Naughton just posted this on The Hill web-site:
While the conflict with Iran has recently led the news, for the previous five months the big story was IMPEACHMENT! Left-leaning pundits and hardcore Democrats were certain that it was going to destroy President Donald Trump — but the polling numbers say something very different: Impeachment has changed nothing.
Trump’s RealClearPolitics approval average has gone from 43.8 percent at the end of July to 45.2 percent today. His polling average against his top rival (former Vice President Joe Biden) has improved slightly. These numbers do NOT mean that impeachment has benefited Trump; only that it hasn't hurt him! How can this possibly be the case if impeachment is the towering moral test breathlessly covered day after day?
Simple: The public views other issues as more important.
Politico and Morning Consult found in November that impeachment was next to last on issues of importance for the public — and there is very little likelihood that that will change. Since Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced the start of the impeachment process, Trump has negotiated a trade deal with China, household income is rising, unemployment remains low, and the stock market has climbed nearly 30 percent this past year!
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) claimed that the Iran crisis was engineered by Trump to distract from impeachment, but the fact is that impeachment is not — and has NEVER been — a serious priority for the American public.
Impeachment is and has always been about satisfying the Democratic voter base (who hate Trump) - Democrats disapprove of Trump by an average of 80 percent. On the economy — Trump’s best issue — Trump’s Democratic disapproval is still 67 percent. Anything that Trump does will be opposed, and any action against Trump will be supported.
Impeachment is only going to get worse as an issue for the Democrats.
Everybody now acknowledges that Trump is NOT going to be removed from office, no matter HOW the senate trial proceeds, Trump will be acquitted, and those many voters on the fence about Trump will consider impeachment to have been a massive waste of time. The Democrats spent a fortune trying to make it happen! Some are already talking about doing it again! They're only damaging their party's credibility while firing up Trump's base. This is NOT going to end well for Joe Biden & his party of failure.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
Nancy Pelosi's impeachment gambit has flopped. She has united Republicans around President Trump in an election year, electrified his base, and allowed him to run once again as a Washington outsider, quite a feat for a sitting president!
It even cost her House Democrats one of their members - fed-up New Jersey Representative Jeff Van Drew defected to the Republicans.
And it’s tanking in swing-state polls. The latest Des Moines Register survey found 48 percent of Iowa voters say Trump should NOT be removed from office, while just 40 percent say he should.
And now Pelosi’s silly three-week delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate has been exposed as a ditzy ploy which only raised the ire of hard-headed colleagues such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” Pelosi tried to put a positive spin on her miscalculation, making the extraordinarily statement that the president is “impeached for life.” Just like Bill Clinton!
Nancy was forced to capitulate without a single concession from her sphinx-like Senate Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, as she’ll be sending over the articles later this week.
What a humiliation.
It even cost her House Democrats one of their members - fed-up New Jersey Representative Jeff Van Drew defected to the Republicans.
And it’s tanking in swing-state polls. The latest Des Moines Register survey found 48 percent of Iowa voters say Trump should NOT be removed from office, while just 40 percent say he should.
And now Pelosi’s silly three-week delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate has been exposed as a ditzy ploy which only raised the ire of hard-headed colleagues such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.
Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” Pelosi tried to put a positive spin on her miscalculation, making the extraordinarily statement that the president is “impeached for life.” Just like Bill Clinton!
Nancy was forced to capitulate without a single concession from her sphinx-like Senate Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, as she’ll be sending over the articles later this week.
What a humiliation.
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
I read she's finally sending the articles of impeachment over to the senate. But aren't there like four or five senators running for the Democrat Party nomination? How are they going to try the impeachment and still participate in Iowa in a couple of weeks? They'll have to oppose the conviction just so they can go stump for votes!
1Diver2
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2015
- Posts
- 304
Are any of you Dems... or even Liberals willing to earn some respect here and admit this whole thing has crashed and backfired?
Lets have that discussion
This impeachment BS has left you without an impeachment, Pelosi a laughing stock, growing animosity across most of the country and likely investigations that will expose just how dirty the very names you use as examples in your party are.
Come on ... Man up! Who will be first ?
Lets have that discussion
This impeachment BS has left you without an impeachment, Pelosi a laughing stock, growing animosity across most of the country and likely investigations that will expose just how dirty the very names you use as examples in your party are.
Come on ... Man up! Who will be first ?
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
I think thre Impeachment is doing just fine. Some Republicans are remembering what it means to be the party of personal responsibility rather than Trumpublicans, IE morons!
IF Moscow Mitch should lose in November that would be icing on the shit sandwich!
IF Moscow Mitch should lose in November that would be icing on the shit sandwich!
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
It happens that in rl I'm a dem state rep in a certain midwestern state. I like to stir the pot though, plus I'm a little kinky, so I hang out here and poke the bee hive.
You're spot on. We screwed the pooch on this. Several of us are talking amongst ourselves about switching to the republican party like some others already have.
I will say I'm NOT one of the ones that took dirty money, so I'm not worried about the information that will be spilling out soon.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
You should try reading something other than RAW/Salon.
It's not going very well according to everyone outside the delusional "woke socialist who hates the USA" bubble.
Wait....you're not capable of that.
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
You should try reading something other than RAW/Salon.
It's not going very well according to everyone outside the delusional "woke socialist who hates the USA" bubble.
Wait....you're not capable of that.
Oh gee I don't know, RAW does concentrate on Trumpski and that's what I do, so it makes it easier to troll Trumpski. Yes there are other outlets that troll Donnie, but Wonkette is a bit too snarky and Bulwark Original is to too intellectual.
Fellatio Fox is just derp.
magicalmoments
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2013
- Posts
- 5,167
#495 above.
Well... I call bullshit.
Even the dumbest politician in the states would not make such an admission.
Oh and by the way, in rl I'm the pope!
Well... I call bullshit.
Even the dumbest politician in the states would not make such an admission.
Oh and by the way, in rl I'm the pope!
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 21,134
gunthernehmen
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2012
- Posts
- 2,907
You unintentionally illustrated why the Democrat Party no longer represents the people.
PS. Stop slapping people. She just wanted a blessing.
Dumpington
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Posts
- 2,891
gunthernehem writes: "But aren't there like four or five senators running for the Democrat Party nomination? How are they going to try the impeachment and still participate in Iowa in a couple of weeks?
I think it'll hurt Klobuchar the most, as she NEEDS an especially strong showing in Iowa or she's finished! And I'm quite sure that Liz & Bernie are also unhappy about being away (e.g. off of the campaign trail) at this crucial time, especially since they BOTH know that Trump will easily survive the upcoming vote in the U.S. Senate!
1Diver2 writes: "Are any of you Dems... or even Liberals willing to earn some respect here and admit this whole thing has crashed and backfired?"
JackLuis responds: "Oh gee I don't know..."
magicalmoments adds: "Even the dumbest politician in the states would not make such an admission."
Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, & Adam Schiff were all hoping that impeachment would turn Trump's supporters against him, but that has certainly NOT happened! The president's base is fired-up & ANGRY, as are an increasing number of American independents! Impeachment is a HUGE BUST!
I think it'll hurt Klobuchar the most, as she NEEDS an especially strong showing in Iowa or she's finished! And I'm quite sure that Liz & Bernie are also unhappy about being away (e.g. off of the campaign trail) at this crucial time, especially since they BOTH know that Trump will easily survive the upcoming vote in the U.S. Senate!
1Diver2 writes: "Are any of you Dems... or even Liberals willing to earn some respect here and admit this whole thing has crashed and backfired?"
JackLuis responds: "Oh gee I don't know..."
magicalmoments adds: "Even the dumbest politician in the states would not make such an admission."
Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, & Adam Schiff were all hoping that impeachment would turn Trump's supporters against him, but that has certainly NOT happened! The president's base is fired-up & ANGRY, as are an increasing number of American independents! Impeachment is a HUGE BUST!
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
JackLuis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Posts
- 21,881
They need to jump on this new evidence and hold hearings and send subpoenas and handcuffs this time. Why is Nancy so hesitant when victory is at hand?
YDB95
Hopeless Romantic!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Posts
- 15,364
They need to jump on this new evidence and hold hearings and send subpoenas and handcuffs this time. Why is Nancy so hesitant when victory is at hand?
My understanding is she's holding out for some sort of assurance that McConnell will allow for a fair trial. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were her.
Similar threads
