Insiders Predict Pelosi May Not Go Through With Impeachment After Hearings

LOL, sure thing. Whatever you say oh prognosticator.

 

Those cases have utterly nothing to do with compelling the House to transmit anything, let alone an impeachment indictment, to the Senate.

You can't just cite to a general legal remedy and act like it applies here to require an indictment to be tried in the Senate.

You don't understand how mandamus is supposed to be used.

Note that this is a real legal opinion, not something I stumbled upon through google.

Hint: Impeachment is in the Constitution. Lovett not being paid is not. Learn to discern Jupiter-sized distinctions.

 

You plainly haven't read the Mueller Report, any of the deposition transcripts, and have not watched any of the live inquiry proceedings. Please do so.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

Informed arguments float everyone's boat.

 

Haven't heard one yet.

 

Then you should quit watching Faux Snooze.

Then read the Mueller Report, the impeachment inquiry transcripts, the Articles of Impeachment, etc.

Perhaps even the Constitution....

 

The Senate isn't required to wait on Pelosi.

 

Even if true, it doesn't matter.

The Constitution doesn't require the POTUS to send US tax dollars to Ukraine.

Ask Obama.

 

I now understand one of two things. Either you didn't read the transcripts or listen to the testimony, or you don't understand what you heard. You mentioned his COS. He answered affirmative to a hypothetical which is proof of nothing. He testified he heard nothing directly.

 

Please spend your time finding actual sources for your bogus claims. Just once.

 

*LOL*

What a fundamental lack of understanding of our form of government.

Congress "controls the purse strings". Tht aid was Congressionally appropriated the aid.Bonespurs violated the law in 2 different ways by trying to obtain an illegal personal benefit:

https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trumps-hold-on-ukrainian-military-aid-was-illegal/

 

These radical-Democrats have gone completely INSANE! Their own 'articles' are such far-fetched, unbelievable bullshit -- which do not even enumerate "crimes" -- that now their poor, over-taxed little imaginations are burning up. You NAILED it, brother!

When their 'articles' hit the Senate, they'll make a "ka-sploosh" noise, like turds landing at the bottom of the toilet. Shortly afterwards, Mitch will simply flush it, and this will all be over -- except for the laughing, and the crying....

 

How about making a coherent argument, with examples of what you;re claiming, comparing the articles to past impeachments and citing to the actual record and applicable law?

That would certainly be about 5,000 steps ahead of that post.

 

LOL, U mad.

That's cute.

 

Account for what exactly??? Wanting to build a wall to keep the third world hoards away?

 

I have little time to recount for you all of trumps failings in the first two years. Suffice it to say, 2/3rds of voters in 2018 said their vote was a message to trump and, of those voters, roughly 80% voted for the Democrat.

 

"Gimme the Nobel Peace Prize for elevating the status of Kim Jung Un!"

Another high-profile failure.

 

I have asked one of your learned 'legal expert' colleagues to tell the rest of us what the rationale is for the Democrat-infested House to ram-jam through two 'articles of impeachment' at break-neck speed -- which do not even enumerate crimes or misdemeanors -- and then simply SIT on them instead of forwarding them on to the Senate as prescribed by the Constitution. No answer....

And that's the way it always is with radical-Democrats. It's all chapter-and-verse 'Saul Alinsky'. Never give a straight answer to anything that contradicts the radical agenda, and just keep pushing toward those goals, no matter what it takes. Ignore whatever valid inquiries or points an opponent makes. Bend or break laws, accepted procedures, and customary legal practices as needed or desired.

 

I don't have a lot of knowledge on Saul Alinsky (not being a right winger), but some of those rules make a lot more sense than following and cheering this from a President..

 

Was his post helpful in explaining a coherent position?

It seemed like a loud wailing sound to me.

As an aside, those rules seem to be Bonespurs' M.O.

 

Seasons greetings, Cy!

I feel like I need to ask you if you have personally taken the time to carefully read the articles for yourself? By that I mean looking at them line by line without any partisan glasses on?

 

Did you notice that as well?? I don't know Saul Alinsky from Better Call Saul, but a lot of those "rules" certainly seem to apply to Trumpism... Especially #5 and #12...

Although as I remember from this hysterical story from early 2018, Trump rarely makes it past #4 on any list, even important ones..

https://www.newsweek.com/former-trump-adviser-teach-constitution-769691

 

Alinsky is one of YOUR faction's creatures... you should become familiar with his writings in order to give you orientation and focus as a functioning Leftist.

If the cartoon depiction of a wind-up monkey in Homer Simpson's mind is supposed to be a caricature of Trump... well... let's say for a moment that you're right! Now, tell us why simple-minded demeaning of a man makes him eligible to be condemned and eventually removed from office as a result of actions taken under the United States Constitution! What crime(s) did he commit? The very Articles of Impeachment against Trump do not list any!

Hint: in Nazi Germany the party's leaders condemned and hated Jews for no good reason. They made fun of them in cartoons and hate-filled rants that had nothing to do with truth or honesty. Is THAT the kind of thing your faction stands for...?!

. .

 

1. Take it up with a leftist...

2. Abuse of Power, Obstruction of Congress.... Impeachable offenses, not statutory crimes (which are not, and have never been, required)

3. Homer Simpson is not Jewish... I know this because I've seen episodes where he falls asleep in church...