Trump to Pelosi blistering letter Dems are 'declaring open war on America

[Serk]

if the military conducted it's affairs by Tulsi's fence sitting standards we'd all be living under a hammer and sickle...or worse.

Ironically, if she were elected, we'd also be living under a hammer and sickle...or worse...

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/

[Jess from VA]

I think the Democrats are bringing the rope to their own hanging. I don’t expect their strategy to change over the next 11 months no matter what happens in the Senate. I don’t expect Trump to win by a landslide in the the popular vote in 2020 but with the miserable performance of the Democrats I believe it should deliver another impressive win for Trump.

It seems the Democrats have been so focused on getting a big win against Trump (impeachment) that they can’t see the negative results it’s bringing. Of course, there is a huge amount of support for the impeachment of Trump, basically those who voted for Hilliary, but there time would be better spent coming up with a strong candidate for 2020. All I can add is GO DEMS!!!

Or better yet, coming up with an actual cogent party platform that is good for America, and not just aimed at more vote-buying (which really is all they do anymore, besides hate on Trump).  Free this and that, Govt run healthcare, forgiven student loans, unrestricted immigration, full benefits to illegals, votes for felons, giving away national sovereignty to UN and other global organizations, gun confiscation, felony level political correctness, continuing to grow the government bureaucracy, and ever more intrusive and mandatory regulations.  No one with an ounce of sense would vote for any of that.  

[f6john]

Is it possible some Dems are actually starting to use their own brains?

"(CNN)Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii voted "present" on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, later slamming the process as politically motivated."

I was surprised to learn this today. Just a move for more votes in the future on her part?

More likely she was worried about losing support from the Russians.

Are you serious or did you just leave off an emoji?

IMHO Tulsi is a fence sitter, publicly trashing Trump but not willing to make an official statement in the house Re: Impeachment vote.
She proudly talks about her time in the military, but if the military conducted it's affairs by Tulsi's fence sitting standards we'd all be living under a hammer and sickle...or worse.
To Use a Quid Pro Joe meme...C'mon Man!!...have some balls.

Apparently my question implied to you that I am a Tulsi supporter which I am not. I’ll just leave your closing comment alone.

[Alien]

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is secretly happy about all of this.  He knows that the Senate will back him and he is in no real danger.  Meanwhile, he can use this to his advantage to do what he always does- create a public diversion and make some sort of move when no one is looking.

The mistake that my side keeps making is in assuming that he's stupid.  Far from it, he is a master at playing the game.  

I don't focus on his moronic tweets or his rambling speeches.  I watch what is going on in the background.

Watch.  There is about to be some big move from him, completely unrelated to the impeachment process.  And no one will notice until it's over and done with because all eyes are on a circus that isn't going to go anywhere.

I'll go even further.  I'll bet that Pelosi won't actually send the articles of impeachment to the Senate because they won't agree to handle the trial in a way that satisfies her.  Then the whole thing goes away.  Then she and Trump will have a beer together and bask in the glow of whatever side deal this was REALLY about.

I don't care what side you support.  They're all in it together.  It's a big club and we are not members.

Ride Safe,

Alien

[G-Man]

........ create a public diversion and make some sort of move when no one is looking.

And that move will put the country in better place, as he always does.

[bikerboy1951]

When the impeachment passed and was announced by Pelosi, there was clapping and cheering before Nancy abruptly cut them off. Impeachment is supposed to be serious, and cheering because your side won has no place in politics.

Brad

[Rams]

I'll bet that Pelosi won't actually send the articles of impeachment to the Senate because they won't agree to handle the trial in a way that satisfies her.  Then the whole thing goes away.  Then she and Trump will have a beer together and bask in the glow of whatever side deal this was REALLY about.
Ride Safe,

Alien

Not arguing any of your points, I agree that Pelosi may not send the two articles to the Senate.   She doesn't believe the jurors will be impartial.   What I don't understand is how she can call what just happened in the House as impartial...……….

Reference Pelosi and President Trump sitting down together over a beer.     Not likely.

Think'n that bridge has been burnt.

Rams   

[Jess from VA]

........ create a public diversion and make some sort of move when no one is looking.

And that move will put the country in better place, as he always does.

Agreed Gary.  

And even if I agreed the president engages in such diversion as a strategy (I don't), what else would you expect a man to do who is resisted, criticized and attacked for his every word and deed by the other party and the media, all day every day?  Why would he ever telegraph any pending strategy or move in such an environment (when he didn't have to)?

But he doesn't make the public diversions, the other party and the media do, day by day.  It's seems to have become their principle reason to exist (to them).  It certainly seems to occupy the majority of their time and effort.

He can't really sneak anything through anyway, someone is always watching.

What appears to be something sneaking through, is only when the other party or media either miss it or have something more divisive, salacious or bloody to pitch that day.

 

[phideux]

Well, now Speaker Pelosi is holding Articles 1 & 2 and not sending them on to the Senate for some reason.
She states she doesn't believe it will be a fair trial.    No impartiality on the part of Republicans.
I'm curious as to how she sees her own house and impartiality.  

I really hope the House recognizes her exceptionally stupid and partisan leadership for what it is and replaces her.   The Democratic Party deserves better leadership.   But then, if the voters of her district would see her for what she really is (not much chance of that happening), maybe they'll decide to put her out to pasture.

Rams

\
The voters in her district probably don't even know what is gong on. They don't have tvs, radios or internet down in the cardboard box and tarp cities where the majority of her constituents are living.

[Alberta Patriot]

Is it possible some Dems are actually starting to use their own brains?

"(CNN)Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii voted "present" on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, later slamming the process as politically motivated."

I was surprised to learn this today. Just a move for more votes in the future on her part?

More likely she was worried about losing support from the Russians.

Are you serious or did you just leave off an emoji?

IMHO Tulsi is a fence sitter, publicly trashing Trump but not willing to make an official statement in the house Re: Impeachment vote.
She proudly talks about her time in the military, but if the military conducted it's affairs by Tulsi's fence sitting standards we'd all be living under a hammer and sickle...or worse.
To Use a Quid Pro Joe meme...C'mon Man!!...have some balls.

Apparently my question implied to you that I am a Tulsi supporter which I am not. I’ll just leave your closing comment alone.

It was actually nothing of the sort, sorry if you took it that way. Maybe I should have posted my opinion as a stand alone comment.
I have been watching Tulsi on Tucker Carlson, Dave Rubin etc. etc....The democrats "Bernie Sandered" her right out of the gate for not completely towing the PC line. I knew they were going to do that when she revealed her platform.
"The Democrats Are Good At Eating Their Own When Someone Dares To Step Out Of Bounds", and it was up to her walk away from these corrupt people, but she didn't, showing a serious lack of conviction IMHO.

[f6john]

Is it possible some Dems are actually starting to use their own brains?

"(CNN)Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii voted "present" on both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday, later slamming the process as politically motivated."

I was surprised to learn this today. Just a move for more votes in the future on her part?

More likely she was worried about losing support from the Russians.

Are you serious or did you just leave off an emoji?

IMHO Tulsi is a fence sitter, publicly trashing Trump but not willing to make an official statement in the house Re: Impeachment vote.
She proudly talks about her time in the military, but if the military conducted it's affairs by Tulsi's fence sitting standards we'd all be living under a hammer and sickle...or worse.
To Use a Quid Pro Joe meme...C'mon Man!!...have some balls.

Apparently my question implied to you that I am a Tulsi supporter which I am not. I’ll just leave your closing comment alone.

It was actually nothing of the sort, sorry if you took it that way. Maybe I should have posted my opinion as a stand alone comment.
I have been watching Tulsi on Tucker Carlson, Dave Rubin etc. etc....The democrats "Bernie Sandered" her right out of the gate for not completely towing the PC line. I knew they were going to do that when she revealed her platform.
"The Democrats Are Good At Eating Their Own When Someone Dares To Step Out Of Bounds", and it was up to her walk away from these corrupt people, but she didn't, showing a serious lack of conviction IMHO.

Once again proving how easy it is to misinterpret one’s meaning, no harm, no foul. 

[Rams]

I'm trying to figure how someone so stupid lacking knowledge in the Constitution got to be Speaker of the House.

It's being reported that she will not send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate until she's agreed to the rules that the trial will be conducted under.

I guess she thinks the Senate majority is looking forward to conducting this trial? She doesn't seem to understand that just like the House majority got to make the rules up for the inquiry and impeachment hearings, the Senate majority gets to make up the rules for the trial. The Constitution and history is very clear on this. I'm confused as hell as to what she thinks she's going to accomplish unless she thinks Senator Schumer can turn some Republicans to the Left. I am constantly amazed by her actions.
I suspect Senator McConnel is laughing his ass off.

Rams

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm trying to figure how someone so stupid lacking knowledge in the Constitution got to be Speaker of the House.

It's being reported that she will not send the two articles of impeachment to the Senate until she's agreed to the rules that the trial will be conducted under.

I guess she thinks the Senate majority is looking forward to conducting this trial? She doesn't seem to understand that just like the House majority got to make the rules up for the inquiry and impeachment hearings, the Senate majority gets to make up the rules for the trial. The Constitution and history is very clear on this. I'm confused as hell as to what she thinks she's going to accomplish unless she thinks Senator Schumer can turn some Republicans to the Left. I am constantly amazed by her actions.
I suspect Senator McConnel is laughing his ass off.

Rams

[Jess from VA]

I'm trying to figure how someone so stupid lacking knowledge in the Constitution got to be Speaker of the House.

It's seniority more than anything.  You get elected enough times, you get to be King Queen.  (There's no schools or testing or qualification list to be Speaker)

As with all politicians, don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.

This one is simple;  Pelosi wants the President to be impeached (he was), but doesn't want him to be acquitted (he would be).  Having worked so hard and spun so much bullshit, and run so many investigations, and wasted so much time and money for so long to get here, she wants to savor their great shining success for awhile.  And maybe forever.  I mean, what else have they done in three years?

A quick and dirty Senate acquittal might make the House Dems look.... ridiculous, petty and insignificant.  (you think?)

It's her ball and she doesn't want the Senate to play with it.  

[Willow]

...
This one is simple;  Pelosi wants the President to be impeached (he was), but doesn't want him to be acquitted (he would be).  ..., she wants to savor their great shining success for awhile.  And maybe forever.  ...

It's not just the savoring.  It's the political "advantage" of being able to say the opposition candidate has been impeached (acquitted will take some wind out of those sails).

I'll find it ironic if the two candidates turn out to be one that was accused but didn't do exactly what the other candidate did, bragged about, but was not accused.    

[Rams]

I honestly don't believe this impeachment has done anything but to solidify the Trump base against who ever he is pitted against.   He beat the Clinton empire and there is no candidate IMHO that has anywhere near the backing as HRC had.   Again, it will come down to electoral votes, I suspect the dems learned a lesson last time but did it stick?

Rams

[98valk]

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/according-to-the-constitution-trump-is-not-impeached-until-the-house-tells-the-senate-bloomberg-news/

according to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.

 

Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment? Must they be transmitted to the Senate to trigger a trial, or could they be held back by the House until the Senate decides what the trial will look like, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted?

 

The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.

 

But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

 

Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation.

 

For the House to vote “to impeach” without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol. It would mean that the president had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution; and it would also deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.

 

If the House leadership 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 was never truly impeached at all.

 

That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

[Moonshot_1]

The Senate must demand the Articles of Impeachment and set a date by which they are to be given to the Senate. Failure to do this would and should cause the Senate to charge the Speaker with obstruction of Congress (as the House considers that a crime and is on record about that) and she should be arrested for that. And then arrest the next guy and the next until the Senate officially gets the Articles for the trial.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes

[Rams]

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

If the House leadership 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 was never truly impeached at all.

I can accept that (mostly because most of this is new to me) except, in the minds of most Americans, President Trump has been impeached.   That's all that's in the news.

Rams

[Pappy!]

^^^^ And that is exactly what Nancy and the Schiff show want the public to believe. She knows the case is weak and public sentiment has turned against impeachment.
She knows that if she turns the articles over to the Senate their little Pinocchio-circus will go up in smoke. I believe this ending was pre-planned and was the only way she allowed the process in the first place. Dupe the public!
BTW - They have not stopped and are in the process of starting more "Investigations" into Trump.
Trump took in an additional $5 million in donations to his re-election fund on impeachment day.

[..]

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

If the House leadership 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 was never truly impeached at all.

I can accept that (mostly because most of this is new to me) except, in the minds of most Americans, President Trump has been impeached.   That's all that's in the news.

Rams

Yerp. He be impeached and they will use it writ large for the 2020 election.

[scooperhsd]

But as long as he isn't found guilty, nothing has changed. Also, I would consider that even if found guilty, but the Senate DID NOT remove him from office, essentially nothing has happened here either.

[Robert]

Trump Gets Massive Post-Impeachment Victory As USMCA Passes House

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-gets-massive-post-impeachment-victory-as-usmca-passes-house/

USMCA passed in the House in an overwhelming 385-41 vote with 38 Democrats opposing it. Far-left Democrat Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) all voted against the trade agreement, which experts have said will create tens of thousands of new jobs for American workers.

The USMCA is expected to create between 176,000 and 589,000 new American jobs and substantially increase economic growth

The expected passage of the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement Friday, which will replace NAFTA and the International Trade Commission estimated could boost U.S. gross domestic product by $68 billion, could be behind the bullish sentiments across U.S. markets.

Democrat against impeachment switches parties, says Trump has his 'undying support'
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrat-against-impeachment-switches-parties-says-trump-has-his-undying-support



House-Senate Impeachment Impasse Would Mean Trump Wasn't Impeached At All: Harvard Law Prof

While Nancy Pelosi threatens to withhold articles of impeachment passed Wednesday night by the House, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman says that President Trump isn't technically impeached until the House actually transmits the articles to the Senate.

    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.

    That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.

    As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message.

In closing, Feldman says "if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached," adding "And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send."


Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics

The challenge we face is precisely what the Founding Fathers foresaw would be our supreme test as a free society.

They never thought the main danger to the republic came from external foes. The central question was whether, over the long haul, we could handle freedom. The question was whether the citizens in such a free society could maintain the moral discipline and virtue necessary for the survival of free institutions.

By and large, the Founding generation’s view of human nature was drawn from the classical Christian tradition.

These practical statesmen understood that individuals, while having the potential for great good, also had the capacity for great evil.

Men are subject to powerful passions and appetites, and, if unrestrained, are capable of ruthlessly riding roughshod over their neighbors and the community at large.

No society can exist without some means for restraining individual rapacity.

But, if you rely on the coercive power of government to impose restraints, this will inevitably lead to a government that is too controlling, and you will end up with no liberty, just tyranny.

[Robert]

In all the chaos that is in Congress and the government I wanted to post this as a kind of re-stater or pause in the battle. Kind of like in wars of the past they did on Christmas day. Its a speech, given by Barr to Notre Dame and it just is amazing.

After reading this I am a bit uplifted from the eloquent words he spoke, I could get no better Christmas gift than to hear these words uttered by someone so high in government today. It is a true breath of fresh air.

I posted the link for the whole speech and the post above also has part of it but its worth reading. Remember this man is in the battle field right now.

Merry Christmas.


Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School and the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame


https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics

So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.

They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.

In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”

This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.

But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.

Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.

In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.

As John Adams put it, “We have no government armed with the power which is capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”

As Father John Courtney Murray observed, the American tenet was not that:

“Free government is inevitable, only that it is possible, and that its possibility can be realized only when the people as a whole are inwardly governed by the recognized imperatives of the universal moral order.”

How does religion promote the moral discipline and virtue needed to support free government?

First, it gives us the right rules to live by. The Founding generation were Christians. They believed that the Judeo-Christian moral system corresponds to the true nature of man. Those moral precepts start with the two great commandments – to Love God with your whole heart, soul, and mind; and to Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.

But they also include the guidance of natural law – a real, transcendent moral order which flows from God’s eternal law – the divine wisdom by which the whole of creation is ordered. The eternal law is impressed upon, and reflected in, all created things.

From the nature of things we can, through reason, experience, discern standards of right and wrong that exist independent of human will.

Modern secularists dismiss this idea of morality as other-worldly superstition imposed by a kill-joy clergy. In fact, Judeo-Christian moral standards are the ultimate utilitarian rules for human conduct.

They reflect the rules that are best for man, not in the by and by, but in the here and now. They are like God’s instruction manual for the best running of man and human society.

By the same token, violations of these moral laws have bad, real-world consequences for man and society. We may not pay the price immediately, but over time the harm is real.

Religion helps promote moral discipline within society. Because man is fallen, we don’t automatically conform ourselves to moral rules even when we know they are good for us.

But religion helps teach, train, and habituate people to want what is good. It does not do this primarily by formal laws – that is, through coercion. It does this through moral education and by informing society’s informal rules – its customs and traditions which reflect the wisdom and experience of the ages.

In other words, religion helps frame moral culture within society that instills and reinforces moral discipline.

I think we all recognize that over the past 50 years religion has been under increasing attack.

On the one hand, we have seen the steady erosion of our traditional Judeo-Christian moral system and a comprehensive effort to drive it from the public square.

On the other hand, we see the growing ascendancy of secularism and the doctrine of moral relativism.

By any honest assessment, the consequences of this moral upheaval have been grim.

Virtually every measure of social pathology continues to gain ground.

In 1965, the illegitimacy rate was eight percent. In 1992, when I was last Attorney General, it was 25 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. In many of our large urban areas, it is around 70 percent.

Along with the wreckage of the family, we are seeing record levels of depression and mental illness, dispirited young people, soaring suicide rates, increasing numbers of angry and alienated young males, an increase in senseless violence, and a deadly drug epidemic.

As you all know, over 70,000 people die a year from drug overdoses. That is more casualities in a year than we experienced during the entire Vietnam War.

I will not dwell on all the bitter results of the new secular age. Suffice it to say that the campaign to destroy the traditional moral order has brought with it immense suffering, wreckage, and misery. And yet, the forces of secularism, ignoring these tragic results, press on with even greater militancy.

Among these militant secularists are many so-called “progressives.” But where is the progress?

We are told we are living in a post-Christian era. But what has replaced the Judeo-Christian moral system? What is it that can fill the spiritual void in the hearts of the individual person? And what is a system of values that can sustain human social life?

The fact is that no secular creed has emerged capable of performing the role of religion.

Scholarship suggests that religion has been integral to the development and thriving of Homo sapiens since we emerged roughly 50,000 years ago. It is just for the past few hundred years we have experimented in living without religion.

We hear much today about our humane values. But, in the final analysis, what undergirds these values? What commands our adherence to them?

What we call "values" today are really nothing more than mere sentimentality, still drawing on the vapor trails of Christianity.

Now, there have been times and places where the traditional moral order has been shaken.

In the past, societies – like the human body – seem to have a self-healing mechanism – a self-correcting mechanism that gets things back on course if things go too far.

The consequences of moral chaos become too pressing. The opinion of decent people rebels. They coalesce and rally against obvious excess. Periods of moral entrenchment follow periods of excess.

This is the idea of the pendulum. We have all thought that after a while the “pendulum will swing back.”

But today we face something different that may mean that we cannot count on the pendulum swinging back.

[98valk]

 “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

― Abraham Lincoln

[Serk]

Is this when Republicans and libertarians loot, destroy, set things on fire, loot and riot, or is that just a Democrat thing?

...asking for a friend.

[Robert]

Is this when Republicans and libertarians loot, destroy, set things on fire, loot and riot, or is that just a Democrat thing?

...asking for a friend.

Nope, that was a very left/dem thing, so just tell them that we will be looking to fill the vacancies at GTMO very soon 

Hurting those who are already hurting from the economy and health care is inhuman, so why not go after the ones responsible?

They wanted anarchy, we want our country back, for one and all.

[Rams]

I'm trying to figure how someone so stupid lacking knowledge in the Constitution got to be Speaker of the House.

It's seniority more than anything.  You get elected enough times, you get to be King Queen.  (There's no schools or testing or qualification list to be Speaker)

Jess,
I understand the process and protocol, what I don't understand is how and why the House Dems picked someone lacking good judgement, common sense and a total lack of integrity.   She's an idiot.

Rams

[Robert]

I doubt it would happen but the planning and thoughts are there from the Dems 


On Tuesday, Schiff sent a letter to Pence alleging that the testimony given by Williams “raises profound questions about your knowledge of the President’s scheme to solicit Ukraine’s interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election”.

In other words, Schiff is inferring that Vice-President Pence “abused his power” just like Trump supposedly did.

During a subsequent appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Schiff was specifically asked if he was “actively looking” at Vice-President Pence…

    Are you actively looking at Vice President Mike Pence and his role in this scandal? And should we expect further revelations either related to the vice president or related to the other core parts of these allegations that have resulted in this impeachment tonight?

If the Democrats could find a way to get Trump removed from office early next year, that would throw the Republican Party into a state of utter chaos and would give Democrats a massive edge heading into November 2020. And if they could get Mike Pence removed from office early next year as well, that would make it even tougher for the Republican Party.

Before we get into the specifics, let’s talk about a hypothetical scenario in which Nancy Pelosi could actually become the President. If President Trump is removed from office by the Senate, Vice-President Mike Pence would move into the Oval Office and a replacement for Pence would be nominated. But if Trump and Pence were both impeached and removed from office before a new Vice-President could be nominated and confirmed, then the next in line for the presidency would be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

[Serk]

She's an idiot.

Pelosi is many things; evil, vile, immoral, conniving, repugnant, etc..... But an idiot she is not. Never underestimate the enemy.

[f6john]

She's an idiot.

Pelosi is many things; evil, vile, immoral, conniving, repugnant, etc..... But an idiot she is not. Never underestimate the enemy.

It’s also my understanding that she is a money raising machine and we all know what that means.

[scooperhsd]

If you read the constitution, you will find that it is not even a requirement for the Speaker to be a representative of a Congressional District.

And , IMO, your remarks on Pelosi are right on.

[Oss]

Should that path be chosen then treason/sedition charges should be filed against Shiftless & Pelosi by DOJ/AG

My thought is that having established the lies & knowing falsehoods with intent to undermine the election the path only requires gumption

I yield to my fellow barrister from Virginia for the specifics of filing of such charges under the Constitution.

The best defense, besides the truth, is always a strong offense



    The Senators and Representatives...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same....
    Article I, Section 6, Clause 1


This clause has been watered down by SCOTUS over the years to the point where arrest can happen and congress members must respond to subpoena



Rule XI (Procedures of committees and unfinished business) of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct can investigate allegations that a Member violated "any law, rule, regulation, or other standard of conduct applicable to the conduct of such Member ... in the performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities". The Senate Select Committee on Ethics has the same jurisdiction. The committee may then report back to their whole chamber as to its findings and recommendations for further actions.

When an investigation is launched by either committee, an investigatory subcommittee will be formed. Once the investigatory subcommittee has collected evidence, talked to witnesses, and held an adjudicatory hearing, it will vote on whether the Member is found to have committed the specific actions and then will vote on recommendations. If expulsion is the recommendation then the subcommittee's report will be referred to the full House of Representatives or Senate where Members may vote to accept, reject, or alter the report's recommendation. Voting to expel requires the concurrence of two-thirds of the members. This is set out in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution
Expulsions from Congress

In the entire history of the United States Congress, 20 Members have been expelled: 15 from the Senate and 5 from the House of Representatives (of those, one member's expulsion, William K. Sebastian of Arkansas, was posthumously reversed). Censure has been a much more common form of disciplinary action in Congress over the years, as it requires a much lower threshold of votes to impose.

The great majority of those expelled — 17 members — were removed from office for their support of the Confederacy in the immediate aftermath of secession:]


If the balance of power in the House reverts to Republican control this should happen immediately IMHO

[98valk]

She's an idiot.

Pelosi is many things; evil, vile, immoral, conniving, repugnant, etc..... But an idiot she is not. Never underestimate the enemy.

she is a well trained mob boss like her father was and who trained her to be one.  her daughter even said she will cut your head off.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/revealed-jfk-worried-pelosis-dad-associated-organized-crime

[Robert]

President Trumps new campaign ad gave me goose bumps.

https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/1179543745550802945/video/1

[Oss]

laughed my ass off on this one

https://twitter.com/i/status/1205885091894956033

[Robert]

laughed my ass off on this one

https://twitter.com/i/status/1205885091894956033

 

Does anyone think the happenings in VA could be related at all to the current events?

[scooperhsd]

laughed my ass off on this one

https://twitter.com/i/status/1205885091894956033

Ok, THAT was funny....

[Alpha Dog]

laughed my ass off on this one

https://twitter.com/i/status/1205885091894956033

This one made my day OSS.  Can't wait to show my wife.

[Rams]

She's an idiot.

Pelosi is many things; evil, vile, immoral, conniving, repugnant, etc..... But an idiot she is not. Never underestimate the enemy.

Understood, the term I used may be incorrect but, this is a family board and I'd hate to have a post eliminated because I used foul language.

Rams