Doc Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 She can hold the articles for some time but the SCOTUS will ultimately force her to send them to the Senate. Just more time wasting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Share Posted December 19, 2019 Just now, Doc said: She can hold the articles for some time but the SCOTUS will ultimately force her to send them to the Senate. Just more time wasting. No... it's shrewd, you see! Shrewd of her to take a public position which is tantamount to admitting your case is weak, partisan, and has no hope of succeeding. It's shrewd to do something unprecedented, guaranteeing the media will shine a spotlight on it (and all the moderates who voted for this shitshow who are vulnerable), all but guaranteeing the DNC loses its majority. It's shrewd I tell ya! ... Why? ... Well... uh... because the narrative engineers told me to say it was shrewd, and I gave up thinking for myself years ago. /JA, GarBoTibs, and all the alts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Hillary has eyes but yet is completely blind. Her yammering on about a fixed election (against her) demonstrates poor optics to many American citizens. Now we can see why a woman who had a fundraiser back in October for the 2020 POTUS run was curiously declining interest in running before now. Even the blind squirrels of the Democratic Party would see Hillary was a part of the movement and most likely pulling the strings of Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, etc. if she was campaigning while the impeachment farce was playing out in the halls of Congress. Edited December 19, 2019 by RochesterRob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You took a position VERY early. And stuck with it. And you were wrong. So wrong you came out the day the OIG referred the entire upper echelon of the DOJ/FBI for criminal referrals and said "there's no cabal!" You're a clown. Your posts prove it each and every day. And this new position of yours is even more simpleminded. It's not a "shrewd" move to do something which hurts your side, like Pelosi is doing. It's a take that's hot garbage. You are literally the Trump of PPP ... driving the ppp squad crazy.... Pretty hilarious to watch. Of course its probably only tibs and his multiple personalities. Edited December 19, 2019 by Albwan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Share Posted December 19, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No... it's shrewd, you see! Shrewd of her to take a public position which is tantamount to admitting your case is weak, partisan, and has no hope of succeeding. It's shrewd to do something unprecedented, guaranteeing the media will shine a spotlight on it (and all the moderates who voted for this shitshow who are vulnerable), all but guaranteeing the DNC loses its majority. It's shrewd I tell ya! ... Why? ... Well... uh... because the narrative engineers told me to say it was shrewd, and I gave up thinking for myself years ago. /JA, GarBoTibs, and all the alts. Tweet tweet - how many impressions did you get on your red pill page this week? Enough to make you an influencer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Share Posted December 19, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Were your 3 biggest fans bots too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Share Posted December 19, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'm scratching my head at why Mitch announced his plans of a fast acquittal... Playing chess? or couldn't resist trolling not realizing that she might threaten to not send it over? Something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 6 hours ago, Foxx said: https://twitter.com/3Days3Nights/status/1207535748607553536 I don't believe that interpretation of Trump's power to adjourn Congress is accurate. 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Is there something wrong with getting support from a foreign country? Well, we will have to find out if it's wrong, after 18 angry Republicans are given unlimited resources to investigate every facet of her and her family's lives over a 2+ year period. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Doc said: She can hold the articles for some time but the SCOTUS will ultimately force her to send them to the Senate. Just more time wasting. The Constitution says nothing about any process between the House and Senate for the steps from impeaching to starting the trial for impeachment. My Constitutional from-the-hip analysis is that McConnell should try to hold the trial even if Nancy doesn't formally deliver the articles. That would be the proper countermove here. 31 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No... it's shrewd, you see! Shrewd of her to take a public position which is tantamount to admitting your case is weak, partisan, and has no hope of succeeding. It's shrewd to do something unprecedented, guaranteeing the media will shine a spotlight on it (and all the moderates who voted for this shitshow who are vulnerable), all but guaranteeing the DNC loses its majority. Is this your prediction? The betting world wants to know and bet the opposite. You were wrong about Trump after friggin' years posting about how the Deep State would drive Hillary to victory. You were wrong about the red wave. I just want to see what you're predicting here. So far the only thing I've seen you commit to is that Biden has no chance to win the nomination, something you've said many times. Edited December 19, 2019 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, John Adams said: My Constitutional from-the-hip analysis is that McConnell should try to hold the trial even if Nancy doesn't formally deliver the articles. That would be the proper countermove here. I agree. Move ahead with it, regardless of whether Nancy sends them over. However, can he actually acquit in the Senate if no "charges" are formally sent to the Senate? Unless I am missing something, McConnell cannot complete the process until Nancy sends over the formal articles, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, KRC said: I agree. Move ahead with it, regardless of whether Nancy sends them over. However, can he actually acquit in the Senate if no "charges" are formally sent to the Senate? Unless I am missing something, McConnell cannot complete the process until Nancy sends over the formal articles, correct? Nothing in the Constitution on it, just tradition. From Wiki (assume this is the complete list of references to impeachment). Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Article II, Section 2 provides: [The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Article II, Section 4 provides: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.[3] Edited December 19, 2019 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 1 hour ago, John Adams said: Interesting political manuever here if Nancy can deny Trump's Senate acquittal victory lap. The Dems get to say Trump got impeached and they can run on that simple fact. The correct rebuttal that the House didn't send the articles to the Senate for the trial, where Trump would have gotten off--That's not a good soundbyte. but, but.... one of the Dems narratives was that they had to do this quickly so as to prevent Trump from interfering in the '20 election. yeah, that narrative is just a crock of *****. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: but, but.... one of the Dems narratives was that they had to do this quickly so as to prevent Trump from interfering in the '20 election. yeah, that narrative is just a crock of *****. They wanted to find more than they did. The charges are absurd, but especially the second. They'd have had much better charges for obstruction of justice in the Mueller probe or violation of election law (though I guess they thought the quid pro quo was not a high crime). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 2 minutes ago, John Adams said: They wanted to find more than they did. The charges are absurd, but especially the second. They'd have had much better charges for obstruction of justice in the Mueller probe or violation of election law (though I guess they thought the quid pro quo was not a high crime). all of which says that they are idiots because there was no obstruction of the Russian Collusion investigation. every single thing Trump is being accused of, the Democrats are actually guilty of. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 19, 2019 Author Share Posted December 19, 2019 https://mobile.twitter.com/M2Madness/status/1207767753425391617 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: all of which says that they are idiots because there was no obstruction of the Russian Collusion investigation. every single thing Trump is being accused of, the Democrats are actually guilty of. But it’s a shrewd political move, Foxx. Like cutting your junk off before a first date just to make sure it doesn’t go too far is shrewd. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 40 minutes ago, Koko78 said: I don't believe that interpretation of Trump's power to adjourn Congress is accurate. Well, we will have to find out if it's wrong, after 18 angry Republicans are given unlimited resources to investigate every facet of her and her family's lives over a 2+ year period. Ya, ummm....did you miss the Benghazi fiasco in the House? Seven investigations. So, ya, they did. Found nothing. Trump is trying to undermine our democracy. Hillary wasnt. Is it wrong to seek foreign governments help in an election? Huh?? 56 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Republicans crying about mean Nancy is actually really ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakin Posted December 19, 2019 Share Posted December 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Ya, ummm....did you miss the Benghazi fiasco in the House? Seven investigations. So, ya, they did. Found nothing. Trump is trying to undermine our democracy. Hillary wasnt. Is it wrong to seek foreign governments help in an election? Huh?? Republicans crying about mean Nancy is actually really ? No one is crying about mean Nancy. We are laughing our balls off at her. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts