Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 19, 2019

"We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side," Nancy Pelosi said, referring to the House "managers" who present the case for removal to the Senate. "So far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us. So hopefully it will be fair. And when we see what that is, we'll send our managers."

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Well now.

Leningrad Lindsay and Moscow Mitch have already announced they are not in any way interested in being an impartial jury so this is a surprising turn of events and leaves Fat Nixon without his "exoneration" event from his co-conspirators.

I expect one hell of a trumper tanturm over this today.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-19 06:49 AM | Reply

House Democrats on Wednesday joined the attacks on McConnell. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) called for "a trial that should be fair to the president, yes, but also fair to the American people."

"Do the senators want to hear from the witnesses? Do they want a real trial? We have to hope that they do," he said.

I wonder how long it will take for Republicans to realize that Nancy Pelosi knows how to utilize the actual levers of political power in a way that all the wasted hot air and bombast of their right-is-wrong/left is right/up is down/ indignation forms the basis of their own demise, both as a matter of principle and common sense?

The Republicans have spent the better part of last few weeks of the impeachment hearings and inquiry screaming here and yon that the House process was biased against Donald Trump. We heard yesterday that the Democrats' pursuit of impeaching Trump was worse than the prosecution of Jesus' own crucifixion itself, metaphorically tearing their own garments asunder with insane analogies and blasphemous allusions of imaginary persecution.

Nancy has stepped into the breach and said "Put your money where your mouth is." Here tacit words were to the effect, "So you think that our serious process was somehow unfair to this impeached President, and the Majority Leader and Chair of the Judiciary committee are openly saying that they intend to be biased, foretelling that the articles themselves will not receive a fair hearing in concert with a spirited defense from Trump over the substance of the charges? She is reminding these Senators that the process begins with each of them holding their hand to the sky and swearing an oath before God to be an impartial judge of the case about to be presented to them, not to be in lockstep defense of the President before the first words of his transgressions are placed into the trial record.

Nancy Pelosi isn't negotiating "terms" with Mitch McConnell, she's simply asking that the Republicans insure her that just like they scream that they themselves want a "fair process," that is what they'll promise to the American people from the Senate trial - a fair process. If Republicans think that they can just bulldoze a farce acquittal for Trump by simply ignoring the constitutional point of the trial itself they are bucking nearly 3/4 of American citizens who expect that Trump aides will provide testimony during the Senate trial, even 64% of Republicans.

Many of Trump's supporters actually believe that Trump is innocent on the facts of the case. All Pelosi is asking is that the nation be given the same chance of a fair process that defendants, prosecutors and juries operate under each and every day in courtrooms all over the nation. The Republicans have left themselves with the argument that because the Democrats haven't been fair to the President so far, we should be allowed to pervert the Senate process in response in revenge. The American public doesn't appear to be on board for such an openly telegraphed perversion already articulated by Senators who got drunk on Trumpism and are waking up to simple reality - No matter what side one is on, Americans expect this trial to be decided on the merits of the case, not upon the feelings of certain jurors before the trial has even started.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 07:08 AM | Reply

Maybe the House can "advise and consent" for a year or so...

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-19 07:18 AM | Reply

Nancy is putting her constitutional power on display by not threatening the Republicans in the Senate, but by telling them the factual truth - Until you tell me what the ground rules are going to be for the trial in the Senate, I cannot in good faith choose the specific managers that I need to send for the trial. Tell me the rules will be fair, or I will remain unable to make that decision and until I can, the Articles will remain unsent.

Quite frankly, this move should be called the Garland Maneuver henceforth and forevermore. Payback's a -------- named Nancy (only uttered in magnificent praise).

Your serve Mitch.

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 07:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#4

And for those slow on the uptake (or unable to mentally connect intrinsically-related things) my Garland Maneuver would be the intentional, passive refusal to take an action within American government that appears to be implicit in statutory intent, but isn't specifically codified in the law itself; thus making inaction permissible and beyond challenge by the Courts or the other branch of government.

#5 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 07:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Total clown car stunt. Everyone is going to see the fraud if they try sitting on what is supposedly a solemn, necessary act to "save the Republic."

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 09:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

#6 the GOP has said they'll acquit regardless of evidence.

Hardly a clown car stunt to let the process devolve into a true sham.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 10:01 AM | Reply

I don't begrudge what Pelosi is trying to do.

It takes quite a set of ovaries to have complete control in the House and then dangle impeachment articles in front of the Senate and demand control over how the Senate conducts its trial.

While it may make hyper-partisans sprout some chub it's a lame attempt at a hypocritical power grab and McConnell is savvy enough to frame it as such to the public.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 10:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who does she think she is trying to tell the senate what to to?

#9 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-19 11:37 AM | Reply

"Who does she think she is trying to tell the senate what to to?" - #9 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-19 11:37 AM

The 2nd in line of presidential succession.

You're welcome, sni.

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-19 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is jury tampering.

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 12:00 PM | Reply

Who does she think she is trying to tell the senate what to to?

#9 | Posted by Sniper

The Senate has already stated they won't do their duty to the Constitution.

So it seems she's the one doing what's right.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Does Pelosi mean Fair Trial like for Saddam Hussein?

#13 | Posted by LesWit at 2019-12-19 12:06 PM | Reply

"While it may make hyper-partisans sprout some chub it's a lame attempt at a hypocritical power grab and McConnell is savvy enough to frame it as such to the public."

If anyone knows a power grab when they see one it would be McConnell, the ranking expert on how to conduct a power grab. All of those Republicans, with their crocodile tears, screaming, calling Democrats names, etc. were a pathetically orchestrated show for their base. Most of them fully understood the hypocrisy of the insults they were throwing. Especially MoscowMitch.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 12:06 PM | Reply

" It takes quite a set of ovaries to have complete control in the House and then dangle impeachment articles in front of the Senate and demand control over how the Senate conducts its trial."

mcconnells refusing to even have a trial, you partisan god damned moron.

#15 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-12-19 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So she's using politics to get what she wants. And in doing so, she is just as corrupt as all Dems have blamed Trump of being. All she's doing is trying to find ways to make this happen without following the established checks and balances. I mean, those checks and balances are just as corrupt as her and Trump are but still, she is just proving how bad the corruption is just so she can find a way to get around having people with a different opinion than hers from being involved in the process.

#16 | Posted by humtake at 2019-12-19 12:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Trial without a Crime. how's that work?

#17 | Posted by Maverick at 2019-12-19 12:16 PM | Reply

What has the House done in this that could be considered 'fair'? Dems basically claim that 'fair' is what they say it is....

#18 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-12-19 12:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Trial without a Crime. how's that work?

#17 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

It should hurt to be this stupid.

#19 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-12-19 12:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is jury tampering.

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 12:00 PM | Reply

You mean the part where jurors have already pronounced innocence prior to the trial itself?

#20 | Posted by SunTzuMeow at 2019-12-19 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#17, there are other types of trials besides criminal ones.

#21 | Posted by Pirate at 2019-12-19 12:24 PM | Reply

Donald gets the permanent stain of being the first impeached, but not acquitted, POTUS if Moscow Mitch and Blanche Graham, et al, won't play fair.

It couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ------.

#22 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-19 12:24 PM | Reply

And in doing so, she is just as corrupt as all Dems have blamed Trump of being.

#16 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2019-12-19 12:15 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Sure. Demanding rules for a trial is EXACTLY THE SAME as obstructing Congress and shaking down an ally for a political favor.

#23 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-19 12:26 PM | Reply

Total clown car stunt. Everyone is going to see the fraud if they try sitting on what is supposedly a solemn, necessary act to "save the Republic."

#6 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2019-12-19 09:48 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Yeah. Donald looked really solemn last night in his rambling speech about hairpieces, toilet flushes, dead Congressmen in hell, and other less sane matters.

#24 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-19 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Innocent until proven guilty. No trial, no pronouncement of guilt. #TrumpExonerated

#25 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 12:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

McConnell should be generous in the rules, give her everything ...

Then dismiss it before it goes to trial.

#26 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 12:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#23 | POSTED BY ANTON

She's not demanding rules, shes demanding "fair" rules.

Unlike the Houses inquiry. She's demanding more than she gave.

#27 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 12:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

McConnell should be generous in the rules, give her everything ...
Then dismiss it before it goes to trial.

#26 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2019-12-19 12:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

When this all gets worked out, and it will, the understanding reached will include an agreement that the trial will proceed.

Nancy isn't as dumb as Trump.

Plus, Trump "wants" a trial, just like he'd "love" to let us see his tax returns.

#28 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-19 12:35 PM | Reply

You mean the part where jurors have already pronounced innocence prior to the trial itself?
#20 | POSTED BY SUNTZUMEOW

Did the hearings show that there was ever a possibility that the House was NOT going to vote to impeach?

LOL. it was a foregone conclusion. or rather COLLUSION!

#29 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-12-19 12:53 PM | Reply

How many Democratic senators for president have already admitted that Trump is guilty? Haven't they already made up their minds like Moscow Mitch?

#30 | Posted by homerj at 2019-12-19 01:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nancy outsmarts RoCheney yet again!!

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-19 01:32 PM | Reply

How many Democratic senators for president have already admitted that Trump is guilty? Haven't they already made up their minds like Moscow Mitch?

Each Senator has to take an oath explicitly demanded by the Constitution itself before any Senate impeachment trial begins:

According to Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials, all senators must make the following oath: "I solemnly swear [or affirm, as the case may be] that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [the person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."
There is not a single Democratic Senator on the record saying that they plan on ignoring this oath and voting to convict Donald Trump regardless of what his defense might be during the trial.

Both the Majority Leader and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee BOTH are on the record stating that they fully intend to ignore this oath, and that they will absolutely do any and everything possible in order to acquit Donald Trump with no regard for the presentation of evidence and possible testimony which will be brought before them.

Therein lies the difference.

#32 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is abuse of power and obstruction of Congress (Senate), impeach Pelosi.

#33 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 02:57 PM | Reply

This is abuse of power and obstruction of Congress (Senate), impeach Pelosi.

No it isn't moron. The actual sending of the Articles is based on sending the names of the House managers who will make the case.

All Pelosi is saying is that until the Senate sets the rules package, she doesn't know who or how many to name as managers.

Kinda like in baseball, when team's trade line ups. In this case, it's Mitch's move first because he sets the rules of the game, and then Nancy reacts based on what Mitch decides.

#34 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't know anything about this so I'll ask...who are the "managers" you're referring to?

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 03:09 PM | Reply

#35

The managers are the term used for the House members who actually prosecute the case in the Senate.

The Constitution allows the Senate to set it's own rules for the trial, and the way and manner that the managers decide to prosecute the case is predicated upon the specific rules that they have to follow.

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

mcconnells refusing to even have a trial, you partisan god damned moron.
#15 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE AT 2019-12-19 12:08 PM | FLAG:

Congress made the rules. Go cry to them.

#37 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-19 03:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The "managers" is the term used....

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 03:21 PM | Reply

It should hurt to be this stupid.

#19 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2019-12-19 12:20 PM | FLAG:

Try an aspirin

#39 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-19 03:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Congress made the rules.

Your ignorance is legendary.

The Constitution made the rules, both the Senate and House are compelled to follow them. The Senate's rules are different than the House's because the House is only charging an impeachable crime, where the Senate's constitutional job is to do "impartial justice" adjudicating the charges by pursuing a trial once the House sends them the Articles.

#40 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Coming up next, "I wasn't impeached," the new line of BS Trump will repeat 58,000 times until his moronic supporters believe it

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 03:41 PM | Reply

Try an aspirin

POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2019-12-19 03:22 PM

Like your mom did..., between her knees..., right before you were conceived?

Well, ya see how that worked, didn't ya?

#42 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 03:52 PM | Reply

McConnell doesn't need to take it up until the House sends it over. Your move Nancy. Maybe she just keeps it I.her pocket so Trump never gets his trial and "exoneration" and just carries his "scarlet I" until the election.

The entire body of jurisprudence relating to "fair trials" relates to defendant rights, not prosecutor rights (mostly it's prosecutorial or investigative irregularities). Seems odd all this posturing after the railroad job we saw in the House. At least they were serious and solemn and appropriately dressed for solemnity. Also prayerful and lacking in joy (hold your applause and high fives until you reach your safe spaces).

I want all the witnesses including those with knowledge of US citizens with corrupt intent in Ukraine. Bidens, Giuliani, Shokin, etc. That would be must see TV.

#43 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-19 03:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The entire body of jurisprudence

This isn't about jurisprudence, it's about the Constitution's instructions. It's wholly impractical to announce players when you have no idea what game they will be playing. There is no language in the Constitution that says the House HAS TO send articles to the Senate.

It's called common sense. It's never come into play with other impeachments because other Majority Leaders did not announce in advance that they were working in concert with the impeached and that they themselves were not going to "do impartial justice" as the special oath for Senate impeachment trials demands that they do.

#44 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've never heard a juror squawk as loud as Schumer.

There was no bias in the House proceedings? Only partisan impeachment in the history of the republic. If you want to make the "lack of conscience in light of overwhelming evidence" argument, I would point out the 4 Democrats who didn't toe the party line. I'd also point out that if the evidence is so "overwhelming" no additional witnesses are needed.

#45 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-19 04:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like a marriage never consummated or homework never turned in, the impeachment is incomplete until submitted to the senate. Like it never happened. #Double**Impeachment.

#46 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As to the team analogy, baseball teams have 25 players and 9 starters. Name a comprehensive team and put in the starters based on the situation.

#47 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-19 05:00 PM | Reply

so, let's pretend it never gets to the senate.

Was it ever a real impeachment?

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 05:01 PM | Reply

The impeachment has occurred in the House. The trial in the Senate is to see if he's to be removed from office and forbidden to hold federal office again.

#49 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-19 05:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"the impeachment is incomplete until submitted to the senate."

Welcome to Make Up Your Own Constitution, kids!

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"let's pretend it never gets to the senate. Was it ever a real impeachment?"

Sure. Trump will always have been impeached, just like Clinton will always have been impeached.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Was it ever a real impeachment?

Nope. It's no more important than a non-binding resolution.

#52 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 05:05 PM | Reply

Without a trial, Trump is not guilty or "totally exonerated", if you will.

#53 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 05:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'm at the bar at the moment and don't have any of my copies of the constitution handy.
I thought it said that after the House impeaches POTUS is entitled to a swift and fair trial in the Senate. If that recollection is accurate Pelosi may be opening the House to a Constitutional proble.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 05:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Without a trial, Trump is not guilty or "totally exonerated""

Nonsense; without a trial he's impeached. No problem leaving it there, as long as the "trial" would be an admitted sham.

And my bet is a Dam would rather run against a candidate who's been impeached, than one who's been acquitted.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:10 PM | Reply

"just like Clinton will always have been impeached."

Clinton got a senate vote

#56 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 05:10 PM | Reply

" It's no more important than a non-binding resolution."

Except to the history books.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:10 PM | Reply

"Clinton got a senate vote"

If he hadn't, would he still have been impeached?

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:11 PM | Reply

^Dam = Dem

#59 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:12 PM | Reply

Danforth,

If it never goes to the Senate the history books will view it as a sham.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 05:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It's a sham impeachment if they don't send it to the Senate, and Americans will rightfully view it as a political stunt.

#61 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 05:14 PM | Reply

That's the thing.

What's better? running against trump, who was impeached and acquitted or running against Trump, who was impeached and nothing else?

What does a senate trial, fair or not, accomplish? maybe it drags this circus closer to the election making it worse for Trump....or hell, it even helps him.

We aren't seeing a thing from the democratic candidates throughout this....is that good or bad for them?

a lot of questions....I know.

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 05:15 PM | Reply

58

I would say yes but I don't know

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 05:16 PM | Reply

"I thought it said that after the House impeaches POTUS is entitled to a swift and fair trial in the Senate."

Senate leadership has already said they won't be conducting a fair trial.

You've been crowing about it for a week.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 05:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here's the first rule, from the Senate.gov rules on impeachment: Pay particular attention to the first word:

I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person, and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment agreeably to said notice.
www.senate.gov

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If he hadn't, would he still have been impeached?

Does it matter? I don't care that Clinton was impeached, I don't care if Trump is impeached. Its just an accusation.

No problem leaving it there

If you want to just go around accusing people without actually backing it up... like a 5yo.

But thats what I have come to expect from Democrats.

From FISA applications, Investigations, and now Impeachment.

The accusation is more important than the truth.

#66 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 05:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"if they don't send it to the Senate, and Americans will rightfully view it as a political stunt."

40%-48% will, sure.

The rest will probably see it as accepting the truth: the rogue President is protected by a rogue Senate Majority Leader.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:22 PM | Reply

Impeachment with an asterisk. Meaningless waste of time.

#68 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 05:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

" I don't care if Trump is impeached. Its just an accusation. "

Then tell us if it'd be okay for Joe Biden to ask Iran to hack into Saudi Arabia to get dirt on Jared's business deals, and promise to sell Iran high-end arms if the dirt is good enough.

That's fair game now...right?

#69 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:23 PM | Reply

"If you want to just go around accusing people without actually backing it up."

There was plenty of backup: witness after witness after witness, all testifying under oath.

What was missing was ANYONE who had exculpatory information. Which just leaves us with liars claiming the accusations weren't proven.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:26 PM | Reply

"Impeachment with an asterisk."

Good enough for Roger Maris.

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:27 PM | Reply

#69 In reality, Americans were hacked, so your analogy could be made even stronger. Not that it would matter to deliberately obtuse Trumpers.

#72 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 05:28 PM | Reply

#70. If you are objective you'll acknowledge that the House majority wouldn't allow the GOP to call any witnesses who might provide exculpatory evidence.

#73 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 05:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#65 Danforth

Thanks for providing that.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 05:41 PM | Reply

"If you are objective you'll acknowledge that the House majority wouldn't allow the GOP to call any witnesses who might provide exculpatory evidence"

Are you still pretending Hunter Biden would've provided exculpatory evidence?

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:48 PM | Reply

"What was missing was ANYONE who had exculpatory information. Which just leaves us with liars claiming the accusations weren't proven."

The fact that NONE WERE ALLOWED to be called might have something to do with that. Just saying.

#76 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 05:49 PM | Reply

"The fact that NONE WERE ALLOWED to be called might have something to do with that. Just saying."

Who, specifically, had exculpatory evidence for the articles of impeachment? Are you another moron who thinks it was Hunter Biden?

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:51 PM | Reply

#75

We'll never know. Why did Sciff and Nadler block him being called?

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 06:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If you are objective you'll acknowledge that the House majority wouldn't allow the GOP to call any witnesses who might provide exculpatory evidence"

Exculpatory evidence of what?
???

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 06:06 PM | Reply

#77

In the absence of testimony we can only speculate as to who might have had exculpatory evidence. And I say that from a standpoint of if Hunter Biden incriminated his board position at Burisma he would have provided exculpatory evidence through self incrimination because he would have given some legitimacy into Trump's request that he be investigated.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 06:07 PM | Reply

"Why did Sciff and Nadler block him being called?"

For the same reason Jared and Ivanka weren't called.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:07 PM | Reply

#81. Was there any request for Jared or Ivanka to be called that was shot down? Were they even mentioned in the call? Did either of them listen-in on the call?

#82 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 06:09 PM | Reply

#82 I think you're thinking of Vindman?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 06:11 PM | Reply

"In the absence of testimony we can only speculate as to who might have had exculpatory evidence."

Speculate first on your theory Trump was actually trying to root out corruption. Don't skip over the part where Ukraine got money the prior year, and the year before that.

"...he would have given some legitimacy into Trump's request that he be investigated."

Nonsense. Burisma was a private company; they weren't getting any money from US taxpayers.

But I'm glad you think offspring are fair game: Let's get Jared in there, as well as Ivanka, Eric, and Don, Jr. ... I mean, we won't know what evidence they have until they all testify under oath, right?

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:11 PM | Reply

"In the absence of testimony we can only speculate as to who might have had exculpatory evidence"

Exculpatory evidence of what?
???

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 06:12 PM | Reply

"Were they even mentioned in the call? "

Tell us what kind of coincidence that occurred when the first time Trump was concerned about "corruption", it just happened to be connected to the son of his chief political rival? Put simply, do you believe Trump would've been concerned in the least if Hunter Biden weren't involved?

Even you're not stupid enough to believe the guy running the corrupt university and corrupt charity was interested in rooting out corruption. It not only doesn't pass the smell test, it doesn't pass the LAUGH test.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The Dragonlady is playing the Turtle like a drum.

#87 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-19 06:16 PM | Reply

"Exculpatory evidence of what?"

Jeff thinks if you can throw shade on Hunter Biden, that somehow makes shaking down an ally during wartime for an announcement of a sham investigation AOK.

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Was there any request for Jared or Ivanka to be called"

No, but they have as much knowledge of the shakedown call as HB does. Exactly the same.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:19 PM | Reply

#88 I'd prefer JeffJ's answer...

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 06:19 PM | Reply

"I'd prefer JeffJ's answer..."

So would I. Jeff?

#91 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:29 PM | Reply

In the absence of testimony we can only speculate as to who might have had exculpatory evidence. And I say that from a standpoint of if Hunter Biden incriminated his board position at Burisma he would have provided exculpatory evidence through self incrimination because he would have given some legitimacy into Trump's request that he be investigated.

#80 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Whatever Hunter Biden did or didn't do is wholly irrelevant as exculpatory evidence for the charges Trump was impeached on. I don't know why normally intelligent people think that what Trump believed in his own mind is exculpatory for what he actually did. It isn't. He believes that he did nothing wrong, the facts, Constitution and law say differently.

As Danforth said, unless Hunter Biden and Burisma were directed connected to the funding that was duly-passed and signed into law by Trump himself; - said funding would only be released if the Ukraine government met specific anti-corruption measurements and targets placed into the law and certified by both the State and Defense Departments, something that was done TWICE by June - the President nor OMB had the statutory right to delay the release of said funding in JULY.

That is why 2 different career officials quit their jobs because they would not allow themselves to violate federal law in a conspiracy to circumvent Congress' authority as this scheme was doing.

And lastly, it's certainly the height of hypocrisy to complain about the lack of ability to call witnesses that had ZERO to do with the actual acts under indictment while denying the investigators documents and testimony from those with first hand knowledge and participation in the events underpinning the impeachment allegations and now articles.

#92 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 06:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The GOP could've called whomever they wanted. The problem is Trump not cooperating. It's like he's guilty or something.

#93 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-12-19 06:36 PM | Reply

House rules state, If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president.

Meaning if the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all.

www.govinfo.gov

#94 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 06:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...the impeachment is incomplete until submitted to the senate." - #46 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 05:00 PM

Here's a link to the US Constitution.

Please provide the cite from that source which states that "impeachment is incomplete until submitted to the senate".

#95 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-19 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lastly, this temporary delay in naming managers and statutorily sending the articles to the Senate is directly akin to what McConnell did as it regards Merrick Garland's SCOTUS nomination.

Nowhere in the Constitution's language on impeachment does it state that the House MUST send passed articles to the Senate nor is there a specified timetable spelling out when passed articles are sent to the Senate.

Pelosi is merely advancing her own Garland Maneuver; intentionally delaying an implicit action that isn't actually demanded nor given a time frame by the statute's actual language. The difference here is that Pelosi has a wholly germane reason for doing so since she needs to know the Senate trial rules before she can decide who the appropriate House managers will be and how they then plan to prosecute their case.

Technically, Nancy could hold the articles through the 2020 election, and if the Dems won the Senate yet Trump still won re-election, she would have every right to send them after January 2021.

How's them Garland apples taste righties?

#96 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 06:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Meaning if the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all.

Read #96. Pelosi can send them to the Senate in 2023 if she wants to if she remains Speaker over the duration. She's going to send them eventually.

#97 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 06:46 PM | Reply

"Meaning if the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all." - #94 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 06:43 PM

When all else fails, make something up.

#98 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-19 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Basically, Nancy not sending the AOI is equivalent to a prosecutor deciding to not actually file charges. Innocent until proven guilty - the president has not yet been impeached.

The clowncar continues to amaze....renaming post offices, a couple commemorate coins, and endless investigations resulting in a symbolic impeachment vote. Great list of accomplishments.

Back in the real world, the country laughs off the clowncar and the Dow ends up 137 - yep, a new all time high.

#99 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-19 07:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"When all else fails, make something up."

It's like Mackris can't open his mouth unless he's lying.

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 07:38 PM | Reply

The link below is the rundown on the witnesses the GOP wanted in the House some of which were denied. The defendant through counsel could also get his first shot at calling witnesses. Exculpatory witnesses as to Trump's motive (corruption rooting vs. dirt digging) could also be called as well as witnesses showing a corrupt intent for bringing impeachment forward from the onset.

As the house did not seek judicial recourse, the "obstruction of Congress" is DOA. The other one (abuse of power) is not a crime (high or otherwise) but if you throw enough set of facts against the wall maybe some could stick on Teflon Don.

www.google.com

#101 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-19 11:03 PM | Reply

"corruption rooting "

You've got to be a total moron to fall for that lie.

"The other one (abuse of power) is not a crime (high or otherwise)"

As Hans says, when all else fails, lie. You really don't know the definition of High Crimes & Misdemeanors, do you?

"if you throw enough set of facts against the wall maybe some could stick"

Yes. FACTS.

#102 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 11:06 PM | Reply

Pelosi can send them to the Senate in 2023 if she wants to if she remains Speaker over the duration. She's going to send them eventually.
#97 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Its not impeachment until the Senate receives it, even Feldman says so.

Danforth claiming otherwise is his lying arrogance ... again....

#103 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 11:09 PM | Reply

Yes. FACTS.

Be great if they actually had some ...

#104 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 11:14 PM | Reply

"Its not impeachment until the Senate receives it"

Please cite the law you're pretending exists, you rotted piece of lying scum.

#105 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 11:15 PM | Reply

"Be great if they actually had some"

Pretense is as pretense does.

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 11:17 PM | Reply

Meaning if the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all.

www.govinfo.gov

You realize that your link goes to the Senate Rules for Impeachment right? The Senate rules have no dominion over either the House (who defines impeachment by their own rules, not the Senate's) nor the Constitution. But thanks for playing.

You're arguing that a Grand Jury indictment never happens until the DA goes to court and files the charges listed in the indictment. The indictment and the adjudication of same are two different and distinct things. I guess one can argue that unless an indicted person is charged, they're not actually indicted, but that makes no sense.

#107 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 11:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hahahahahaha.

Mitch the bitch was caught monologuing to his pedo loving base.

Then Ms. Incredible impeeched Tdump and then bitch slapped mitch.

Hahahahaha!

#108 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-20 12:28 AM | Reply

I think we struck a nerve. I think we can agree that an impeachment process that never makes it to the Senate is a pointless waste of time. Pathetic and sad. Almost an impeachment.

#109 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-20 12:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

donald impeached. LOL. He finally made presidential history.

Too funny.

#110 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-20 01:11 AM | Reply

"Almost an impeachment."

Pick up a history book one of these days.

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 01:22 AM | Reply

Here's Noah Feldman, one of the scholars selected by the Democrats to testify, arguing that since "impeachment" is a process, it is not completed until the House sends the Articles to the Senate! Impeachment is not complete until it gets to the Senate triggering the trial according to the Dems own Harvard scholar. Hold onto your asterisks buckaroos!

www.google.com

#112 | Posted by Nuke_Gently at 2019-12-20 07:19 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Game show contestant:

Things that are inconsequential, pathetic, pyrrhic, pointless, waste of time, impotent actions, meaningless gestures, futile.

Trump's incomplete impeachment?

#113 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-20 07:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Noah Feldman, one of the impeachment experts brought in by House Democrats as a witness during the impeachment hearings says that Trump actually hasn't been impeached yet. "According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote."

Thanks for playing.

#114 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-20 07:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#112

Her analysis is based on assumptions, not the actual text of the Constitution, something she admits herself:

The (Constitution's) provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they don't directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate. But the framers' definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.
Just like the Founders assumed that a Senate Majority leader faced with an open SCOTUS seat would give a President's nominee a fair hearing in the Senate and a vote either elevating them to the Court or denying them the seat. That didn't happen either.

That is why I coined the term of Garland Maneuver as a means to define an intentional delay through simply not acting on a governmental issue where the statutory language doesn't demand a specific time frame that an action must occur likely because the laws' authors never imagined that future representatives would choose to halt a process before its defined end.

#115 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-20 07:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

More from Feldman:

If the House votes to "impeach" but doesn't send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn't directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution's description of impeachment.

A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That's built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.

"Acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution..." is precisely what Mitch McConnell did when he exercised a pocket veto of Merrick Garland's nomination by never allowing him a hearing or a vote.

That is very analogous to what Pelosi is doing with the House-passed articles of impeachment, the difference being she will send them to the Senate very soon. Garland never got his day before the Senate and a vote.

#116 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-20 08:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks for playing.

#114 | POSTED BY VISITOR

Thanks for letting yourself be played by failing to actually read your own source's comments.

#117 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-20 08:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As long as she's withholding the articles we still have an unimpeached President. She can hold them as long as she wishes, I suppose.

#118 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-20 08:05 AM | Reply

An impeachment without a conviction is a pointless and futile gesture. An impeachment without a trial is somewhat less than that. Pelosi's Pyrrhic Adventure.

#119 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-20 08:07 AM | Reply

An impeachment without a conviction is a pointless and futile gesture. An impeachment without a trial is somewhat less than that. Pelosi's Pyrrhic Adventure.

Blah, blah, blah.

The Articles and managers will be named in the very near future. McConnell nor Trump can control exactly when, so get over it!

#120 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-20 08:17 AM | Reply

An impeachment without a conviction is a pointless and futile gesture.

Not at all. Donald Trump goes into the 2020 election as one of only 3 American Presidents to be impeached through a House of Representatives vote, one in which Trump actually received more votes for his impeachment than did Bill Clinton for his.

I think that's pretty significant, don't you? Trump finally won an election duel by actually getting the most votes!

#121 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-20 08:26 AM | Reply

Thanks for letting yourself be played by failing to actually read your own source's comments.#117 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-20 08:04 AM
Not going to pretend that we all don't know why you deliberately chose not to quote this part of the source...and how it completely invalidates your previous comments.

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all.

Have the articles been transmitted? Then president has yet to be impeached.

#122 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-20 08:26 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Claims getting to third base is scoring.

#123 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-20 08:33 AM | Reply

There was an interesting and informative discussion on NPR yesterday about how Trent Lott and Tom Daschle worked out an agreement on the rules for the Clinton impeachment trial. It's available here: www.npr.org

Lott knew he would never have the votes required to remove Clinton. He also knew the Senate had a Constitutional duty to fulfill.

Senior members of the U.S. Senate used to be able to disagree over serious issues and still behave like adults and do their jobs.

Now, people like McConnell and Graham are in charge. ("We don't need a trial! We've made up our minds! We're dismissing the case!")

#124 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-20 10:41 AM | Reply

The accusation is more important than the truth.

POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Yeah. Just ask The Biden's.

Trump was never interested in the truth. Only the accusation. On CNN. From the head of another government.

Your sauce is very weak my friend. And your impeached president is repeating Russian black ops propaganda.

Congrats on your new low comrade.

#125 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-20 02:45 PM | Reply

Have the articles been transmitted? Then president has yet to be impeached.
#122 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Wrong. Naturally.

First the articles will eventually be transmitted

Second the house has already voted to impeach the President

So sorry. It's done. The President is now impeached. By the House of Representatives. Now and forever.

Now we get to live the day after. For a few weeks. And brilliant we can agree on terms for the trial.

Think Humpy can take the pressure? Not likely.

It's already obvious his deplorables can't.

#126 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-20 02:49 PM | Reply

"And brilliant we can agree on terms for the trial."

Should be

" Until we can agree on terms for the trial. "

Thanks Siri.

#127 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-20 02:51 PM | Reply

Think Humpy can take the pressure?

Not a chance. I look forward to his increasingly deranged tweetstorms.

#128 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-20 02:52 PM | Reply

Then president has yet to be impeached.
#122 | POSTED BY ADUMBWHORE

The votes are cast. Donnie Drumpf was impeached.

Take as much time as you need to accept reality and move on with your miserable life.

#129 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-20 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who cares if he was impeached? History will see this "impeachment" for exactly what it is, a partisan move by the Democrats. An impeachment like this isnt a "stain" on the President. It's a sign of our times. Now if it was Bi partisan and both Dems and Repubs voted to impeach him, then that was something different.

#130 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-20 03:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Who cares if he was impeached?

All these folk screeching that he wasn't, for starters.

#131 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-20 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"History will see this "impeachment" for exactly what it is, a partisan move by the Democrats." - #130 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-20 03:25 PM

No, history won't see it that way.

No more so than history saw the impeachment of Andrew Johnson as anything but what it was: An impeachment. Only 19th century political historians know the details of that impeachment, including the partisan breakdown of the votes to impeach.

It will be the same thing as Trump's impeachment.

#132 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-20 03:32 PM | Reply

I can't wait for BOAZ to eventually post this:

"Who cares if he was acquitted? History will see this "acquittal" for exactly what it is, a partisan move by the Republicans. An acquittal like this isn't an "exoneration" of the President. It's a sign of our times. Now if it was Bi partisan and both Dems and Repubs voted to acquit him, then that was something different."

Not going to hold my breath though.

#133 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-20 03:40 PM | Reply

The reality denial is strong with cult45ists.

Haha!

#134 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-20 03:50 PM | Reply

Ah, he wasn't impeached until she sends the articles. You girls need to check the rules if you can pull up your panties and wash your fists

#135 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-20 04:02 PM | Reply

Nancy is hanging the articles over Trampy's head. The more the cultists cry about them, the more news they make going into the holidays.

Make em dance Nancy.

#136 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-20 04:10 PM | Reply

"You girls need to check the rules"

Feel free to post the rule you're referencing.

"he wasn't impeached until she sends the articles."

You'll be needing a lot of this:
www.walmart.com

#137 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 04:11 PM | Reply

The President is now impeached. By the House of Representatives. Now and forever.
#126 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Yes. Even if Pelosi doesn't send the articles to the Senate, It doesn't matter what the Senate does. Whatever the procedural issues, the label will stick.

I think the Democrats are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. To the Republicans, it's either political persecution or an admission they don't have a legitimate case.

#138 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 04:41 PM | Reply

Suppose Pelosi holds onto the Impeachment Articles until ... Jan. 4, 2021 ... after Democrats take back control of the Senate in the election of Dec. 3, 2020?

#139 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-12-20 06:23 PM | Reply

Dec 3?

#140 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-20 06:26 PM | Reply

Have the articles been transmitted? Then president has yet to be impeached.
#122 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

We interrupt this moment of hateful wallowing for a dose of reality.

Poor Deplorable. Wallowing in your own hate.

Cannot even see past your own hate.

This President is Impeached. Now and forever.

For all of Time.

Next time don't elect a common crook and corrupt con man to the highest office in the land.

The articles will be transmitted in due course.

You know they will. When Nancy is ready. When McConnell agrees to a real trial. Pretty simple no?

We now return you to your hateful wallowing already in progress.

#141 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-20 06:33 PM | Reply

Next time don't elect a common crook and corrupt con man to the highest office in the land.

If Trump were a Democrat, you'd defend him with your life.

#142 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 06:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If Trump were a Democrat, you'd defend him with your life."

Ray exemplifies how Republicans assuage their consciences these days: assure themselves EVERYONE puts party over morals.

#143 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 06:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, you're right, of course ... Nov. 3, 2020 is election day.

#144 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2019-12-20 07:08 PM | Reply

Nov. 3, 2020 is election day.

Unless you live in the South... then it's December 3. :-p

#145 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-12-20 07:16 PM | Reply

Ray exemplifies how Republicans assuage their consciences these days: assure themselves EVERYONE puts party over morals.
#143 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Are you going to tell me Hillary has higher morals than Trump?

#146 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 07:42 PM | Reply

Actually BOAZ, that's exactly what it is: A stain on Trump's legacy. Just ask Wikipedia, it's now set in stone.

#147 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-20 07:51 PM | Reply

Some are claiming that Impeachment isn't real unless the House submits the articles. That's not true either, he was impeached when the vote passed. That was confirmed back in 1873 when Mark Delahay was impeached and resigned before articles moved to senate. No trial, no managers, but he's still on the list of impeachments.

#148 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-12-20 07:51 PM | Reply

"Are you going to tell me Hillary has higher morals than Trump?"

I'm going to tell you you're a moron for even suggesting the question.

Let's talk Foundations, shall we? Trey Gowdy, Jason Chaffetz, and Devin Nunes all had access to unlimited lawyers pouring through every document of the Clinton Foundation, and after doing that, decided the best way to attack HRC was Benghazi, where she wasn't even in the military chain of command.

Now compare that to the Trump Foundation, where four members of the Trump Family (Donnie, Donnie Jr, Eric, and Ivanka) pleaded guilty to "misappropriating" (okay, let's be honest: STEALING) over $2 million, ostensibly raised for Veterans, and St. Jude's. Add that to the fact Junior, Junior II, and Junior Miss all have to take COURT-ORDERED TRAINING to learn IT'S NOT OKAY TO STEAL MONEY FROM A CHARITY. A lesson daddy obviously never taught.

Your question alone exposes your willful ignorance. Enjoy your wallow, dumbschitt.

#149 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 08:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm going to tell you you're a moron for even suggesting the question.
Your question alone exposes your willful ignorance. Enjoy your wallow, dumbschitt.

Thank you. You made my point.

#150 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 08:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You made my point."

Your point was HRC is equally corrupt. You're clearly a moron who will fall for anything, provided it's dumb enough. Claiming I made your point, when I eviscerated it, exposes your ignorance once again.

Enjoy wallowing in your fecal self.

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 08:50 PM | Reply

RSTY

"A stain on Trump's legacy. "

And worse yet, a stain on Trump's brand ~ which happens to be the source of income for himself and every member of his family. What else do they have to trade? Nothing!

Royal Saudi money will likely dry up, too.

This impeachment business is gonna hurt all of them something awful.

#152 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-20 09:02 PM | Reply

"Are you going to tell me Hillary has higher morals than Trump?"

How many lawsuits has Hillary settled out of court?
How many dollars has Hillary stolen from charities?

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-20 09:10 PM | Reply

Claiming I made your point, when I eviscerated it, exposes your ignorance once again.

All you did was cite one of the ways Hillary's crimes were whitewashed.

Her public persona as a vile corrupt woman was a big negative during the election. Now with the weight of the impeachment to have to carry, she'll lose by an even bigger margin is she chooses to run again.

If you weren't so corrupt yourself, you would see my point.

#154 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 09:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How many lawsuits has Hillary settled out of court?
How many dollars has Hillary stolen from charities?
#153 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Lol. The Clintons were selling political favors to foreign powers through the Clinton Foundation.

#155 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 09:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Lol. The Clintons were selling political favors to foreign powers through the Clinton Foundation."

Then why wasn't she charged with a crime?
It's been three years, what's Trump waiting for?
You tell us, Ray.

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-20 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then why wasn't she charged with a crime?

A lot of people were disappointed that she wasn't. And Trump complained about it. We don't know what goes on behind the scenes. My guess is she's untouchable. Trump would be putting himself and family at terrible risk.

IMO, the same people behind Trump's impeachment went about laying the groundwork for another run for the presidency. Officially, she's free of crimes and misdemeanors. I don't think it's going to do her any good if she runs for president again.

#157 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 09:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We don't know what goes on behind the scenes. My guess is she's untouchable. Trump would be putting himself and family at terrible risk."

LOL.
Just LOL.

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-20 09:52 PM | Reply

If she's so untouchable, why didn't she win the election?

I mean really, you think this incredibly powerful person just decided to not use that power to get exactly what she wanted...

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-20 09:53 PM | Reply

Snoofy - you don't make any sense.

#160 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 10:05 PM | Reply

No, Ray. I'm making perfect sense.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-20 10:06 PM | Reply

SNOOFY

You're both forgetting the 2016 bargain between Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.

If one runs, the other doesn't.

The same applies to 2020.

#162 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-20 10:19 PM | Reply

"Then why wasn't she charged with a crime?
It's been three years, what's Trump waiting for?
You tell us, Ray."

Don't you get it? The fact she's never been charged PROVES she's guilty!!! Just like me losing money on gold PROVES I was investing right!!!
~Ray NoVax, formerly Ray Dow1400

#163 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 10:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It reminds me of something Corky just said:

"Most atheists like circular logic; Miracles can't happen, and anyone who says they did is a false reporter because miracles can't happen.... and anyone who says they did... ad infinitum."

I think Ray would agree that Ray is a fervent political atheist!

#164 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-20 10:30 PM | Reply

"My guess is she's untouchable. Trump would be putting himself and family at terrible risk."

Ooooohhh, the Vince Foster idiocy rears its dumbasssss head.

#165 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 11:57 PM | Reply

If Trump were a Democrat, you'd defend him with your life.

#142 | POSTED BY RAY

Don't make me gag.

Have you even seen the Democratic lineup?

Every single one of them is a better person than trump. Not one looney amongst them. Not even Andrew Yang is as crazy as trump. Now there is a stable genius if you wanted one of those.

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that I would ever even vote for much less support someone as evil and hateful as Donald J Humpy.

I had trouble supporting Bill Clinton after he was impeached. It is just that there wasn't anyone better than him come election time.

I gauranGodDamnTee we have better choices than Humpy this time.

#166 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-21 11:19 AM | Reply

Lol. The Clintons were selling political favors to foreign powers through the Clinton Foundation.

#155 | POSTED BY RAY

Ray. In Humpy talk(so you will understand):

Fake News.

She was totally exonerated!

#167 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-21 11:22 AM | Reply

The articles will be transmitted in due course. - #141 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-20 06:33 PM
Then the president will be impeached in due course. I've no doubt it'll happen, it just hasn't yet.
I'm going to put my faith into the opinion of Noah Feldman, the Democrat's expert on the impeachment process, over yours. Pretty simple no?

We now return you to your hateful ignorant wallowing already in progress.

#168 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-12-21 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Then the president will be impeached in due course. I've no doubt it'll happen, it just hasn't yet. "

You can stamp your feet and pull your hair out and scream he hasn't been impeached yet all you want. You can stick your fingers in your ears believe what you want. If it makes you feel better.

This America.

But the rest of the world already knows. This President has been Impeached.

Now and Forever. For all of Time.

Congrats Deplorables. You built that.

#169 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-21 12:13 PM | Reply

She was totally whitewashed!
#167 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

FTFY

#170 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-21 12:25 PM | Reply

Re 170

You fixed nothing. You and your fellow deplorables tried to break everything. Humpy and his Deplorables tried and are still trying to break the Constitution. Good luck with that.

After years of investigation, Hillary Clinton was completely exonerated.

Completely.

But, not one apology. Not one.

Go to hell ray. Even Bill Clinton apologized after he was impeached. Even though he was not convicted. He apologized. Was contrite for what he had put the country thru.

Trump has no idea what that word even means. And apparently neither do any of his sycophants.

Apparently.

#171 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-21 12:40 PM | Reply

Go to hell ray. Even Bill Clinton apologized after he was impeached. Even though he was not convicted. He apologized. Was contrite for what he had put the country thru.

The Clinton impeachment was no more justified than the Trump impeachment. Neither was the Andrew Johnson impeachment.

After years of investigation, Hillary Clinton was completely exonerated.
Completely.

You try to hard to believe what her apologists tell you.

#172 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-21 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Even Bill Clinton apologized after he was impeached.

Did he shed a tear too?

After years of investigation, Hillary Clinton was completely exonerated.

Oh really ...

Clinton's charity confirms Qatar's $1 million gift while she was at State Dept
www.reuters.com

Heres my guess, Biden, Hillary were laundering money pay-to-play. Durham will get to the bottom of it.

#173 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-21 01:02 PM | Reply

"Fairness means that I dish it out without having to take it."

-Speaker Pelosi

#174 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-21 01:35 PM | Reply

How this is being viewed in battleground States like Pennsylvania.

#175 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-12-21 01:52 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort