Daily Mail: Mitch McConnell threatens to CANCEL Donald Trump's Senate trial if 'scared' Nancy Pelosi does not hand over 'slapdash' articles of impeachment - as Speaker slams him as a 'ROGUE leader' and president gloats he will be cleared by 'default'
* Nancy Pelosi forced the Trump impeachment across the finish line Wednesday
* Now the process moves to a U.S. Senate trial but Pelosi said she's in no hurry
* She blasted Senate leader Mitch McConnell for saying he's not an 'impartial' juror, and declared she won't hand him the baton without a pledge of 'fairness'
* Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing for witness subpoenas that Republicans don't want to agree to
* Impeachment trial can't start until Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy choose 'managers' to carry the House's case to the Senate
* McConnell slammed Pelosi in a floor speech and warned the Senate's more patient pace will have a 'calming' influence after 'slapdash' impeachment
* President Donald Trump warned that '[t]he Do Nothing Party want to Do Nothing with the Articles & not deliver them to the Senate, but it's Senate's call!'
Mitch McConnell threatened on Thursday to cancel Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate if 'scared' Nancy Pelosi refuses to send him the formal articles of impeachment that Democrats passed Wednesday night.
The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader went to war over next steps in the impeachment process, with Pelosi slamming McConnell as a 'rogue leader'—and he blasted her indictment of the president as 'slapdash' and 'unfair.'
The dispute exploded into the open the morning after Democrats voted to impeach Trump, with the president bragging he could prevaIl by 'default.'
'If the Do Nothing Democrats decide, in their great wisdom, not to show up, they would lose by Default!,' Trump argued on Twitter of his upcoming Senate trial, which is now in doubt.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Senate Majority leader McConnell is not going to give up his position and power as Majority Leader of the Senate to US Speaker Pelosi or to the Senate Democrat minority. Doubly so in this case since it appears that Speaker Pelosi will not pass over the articles impeachment unless she is sure of a conviction. Is this a winning strategy for the Democrats? I do not think so, but we shall see.
More News On House Speaker Pelosi Not Sending The Formal Articles Of Impeachment To The Senate
Impeachment trial plans in disarray as Congress heads home -- AP
Senate leaders punt impeachment trial deal until after holidays -- The Hill
Democrats seek high-profile trial for Trump in Senate -- Reuters
McConnell rips Pelosi for impeachment delay, says Dems ‘afraid’ to transmit ‘shoddy’ articles -- FOX News
Pelosi: 'Rogue' McConnell must decide next steps on impeachment articles -- The Hill
Democrats rally behind Pelosi on delay of articles -- The Hill
McConnell and Schumer fail to strike impeachment trial deal -- Politico
Donald Trump demands 'immediate' trial and says Nancy Pelosi won't send impeachment articles to the Senate because she fears Adam Schiff AND the Bidens could be forced to testify—as Mitch McConnell declares rules 'impasse' with Chuck Schumer -- Daily Mail
Trump rails against delay in moving impeachment to Senate -- AP
'They’re ashamed of them': Donald Trump mocks Nancy Pelosi's House Democrats for not sending articles of impeachment to the Senate and claims 'it doesn't feel like I'm being impeached' -- Daily Mail
24 comments:
Nancy Pelosi is every bit as corrupt as LBJ. Lyndon got a TV station for his wife using his influence. that set the family up for life after politics.
See as though Pelosi has a daughter at PBS. Undue influence?
Hard to say, but Pelosi has been aristocracy, since she was born in Baltimore. SWad to say but as aristocracy, noblesse oblige means nothing to Pelosi except something to insincerely mouth but not believe in or act on.
Her district, Ca-12 district (aka San Fransicko), is a shit hole.
SHOCK PHOTO: San Fran man defecates in grocery store aisle
www.theamericanmirror.com/shock-photo-san-fran-homeless-defecates-in-grocery-store-aisle/
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/18/shopper-poops-middle-supermarket-opens-pack-toilet-paper-wipe-off-11928026/
https://michaelsavage.com/disgusting-san-francisco-man-defecates-in-grocery-store-aisle/
www.bizpacreview.com/2019/12/17/thank-you-pelosi-san-fran-dems-called-out-when-man-spotted-defecating-in-safeway-aisle-3-865554
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_12th_congressional_district
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi
San Francisco is a SHITHOLE!
Not "SWad" but "Hard"
Mitch McConnell offered Nancy Pelosi the same rules that were used for the 1998 trial of Bill Clinton.
Tellingly, the Bitch Pelosi refused.
Pelosi is moving wisely on this issue given that two key Republicans have already declared how they will vote irrespective of the credibility, or, otherwise of the charges/evidence. Their statements are in direct contradiction of the Oath they will have to swear pledging:
"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [President Donald Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."
If it moves into the Senate, Roberts should expel McConnell and Lindsey from the trial as such disrespect of the process and the Oath cannot be tolerated. Not in a law abiding country, if it is a law abiding country. Roberts will certainly show his integrity or lack thereof on this issue.
Bob, your screeds read very similar to B Poster's older writings in terms of their utterly inverted cast to events and and history. Angry confusion reigns in Bob World.
I'm happy to clarify some points for you.
The Dems have concocted a political vendetta and termed it an "impeachment". If you could see through your leftist haze, you would have witnessed a House that violated very tradition and precedent of the process and every right of the accused (President Trump) to a fair trial. You might remember that in US law a "fair trial" is a term specific to the accused, not the prosecution.
The Dems produced two so-called articles of impeachment - both very broad and shallow: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress (whatever that means). SCOTUS as much as scuttled that article last week when they questioned how the president; availing himself of the Judicial Branch to defend himself against charges by the Legislative Branch, is now somehow "Obstruction of Congress".
The Dems were convinced that the court of public opinion would blindly remain on their side. It didn't. No matter how many Fake News orgs parroted their talking points, the public began to recognize this impeachment* for what it is. A fraud.
The Dems are now making absurd/laughable demands of the Senate to hold a "Fair Trial" under their rules - as they make them up. Again, a fair trial exists to protect the accused, not the prosecution. (Don't take my word for it, go peruse the Magna Carta)
Also I have a question: Why now the delay when Trump was an "existential threat to democracy" just a week ago? The Dems were extolling the Constitution and proclaiming it mortal danger if American voters were allowed to participate in a regular election in November of 2020. (Which is highly ironic to me)
The Dems were hailing the Founders in all their wisdom and how they would despise the evil Trump. You know, those same 'racist white male slave-owners' they accuse of genocide whenever its politically convenient.
So here is a prediction. The Senate will hold a trial with or without the Democrat Articles. President Trump will be acquitted. There will be a bipartisan majority for the acquittal. The Democrat House will have produced an impeachment* with an asterisk.
President Trump's chances for reelection and a GOP House majority have improved drastically.
Please respond if you feel the need for more education.
Russ
Another way to look at it.
Bob,
Your way of looking at it is a sham. It is just propaganda. You're as much of a joke as B Poster.
Anon
What I said is valid and reasonable relative to the Oath required and the comments of both individuals. If you are unable to reconcile that with you inane way of thinking you may well be not redeemable.
Acordingly they should be disallowed to vote should a "trial" proceed to that point. Perhaps if you and Russ were to comment on the veracity of that instead of spewing BS the site would be a better place to exchange thoughts and comments. Perhaps you and your alter ego should have a talk together.
uh oh... Noah Feldman just broke some crystal.
"Dems' own expert witness says Trump not truly impeached unless articles go to Senate.
elosi, D-Calif., is apparently using the delay as leverage to extract favorable terms for a Senate trial. But Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg that an “indefinite delay” would pose a “serious problem”—as impeachment only technically happens when the articles are transmitted to the Senate.
“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,” Feldman wrote.
“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president,” he continued. “If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”"
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosis-problem-dems-own-witness-says-trump-not-truly-impeached-unless-articles-go-to-senate
IMPEACHMENT*
R,
Russ/Anon
You guys sound as if you are one and the same.
In case you misread my statement here it is again and you should note that it deals only with the possible invalidation of two Senators who happen to be Republicans but who could be Democrats under different circumstances that have said they would not be impartial and the Oath they would have to take during the swearing in part, when and if it goes to the Senate. Please re-read it carefully. If you cannot understand the concept of Oath taking I would be pleased to address it. NOte carefully where it say "I it moves into the Senate ....."
"Pelosi is moving wisely on this issue given that two key Republicans have already declared how they will vote irrespective of the credibility, or, otherwise of the charges/evidence. Their statements are in direct contradiction of the Oath they will have to swear pledging:
"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [President Donald Trump], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God."
If it moves into the Senate, Roberts should expel McConnell and Lindsey from the trial as such disrespect of the process and the Oath cannot be tolerated. Not in a law abiding country, if it is a law abiding country. Roberts will certainly show his integrity or lack thereof on this issue."
Bob,
In that some people consider all cultures equal or all opinions equal, what you said is valid.
However, to a reasonable and well educated person, what you said is invalid.
Better luck next life. Maybe God could spot you an additional 200 IQ points and get your IQ above 30.
Bob, you can repeat yourself as often as you like. It doesn't make your point any less false or irrelevant. You should apply your high standards to your heroes on the hard left.
First of all neither McConnell nor Graham have asserted any such thing as you claim above. There is zero cause or possibility of them being either expelled or recusing themselves from this process. Pelosi has drunk-stammered her way into an Alt-Left progressive suicide jump. The Democrats are panicking because their fraud and lies are becoming more exposed every day.
Again, you have this weird inverted political world view where lawless and 'oath-breaking' behavior is fine for one side, but loudly shrieked about in blame to the other. Even if such behavior is nonexistent.
And BTW anon and I are not the same person. LOL
Bob's education continues...
If I only had a militia put a end to all this hogwash
Russ
Research Lindsay recently on CNN and yes he did not say directly that "I am not impartial" but what he did say shows he is and that he is adamant about it. The media has summarized what he said, so while it isn't as black and white as Trump's attempt at coercion for personal gain, vis a vis the call he made to the Ukraine PM, the point is made, it does show his is not impartial.
If you were called up for jury duty and on being considered for a specific case you said to the judge 'I am convinced the defendant is guilty' you would be rejected.
What they did is make a sham of Justice and the Rule of Law in the Senate through their criminal shenanigans and posturing. Now on the other hand, if it was a Democrat President facing impeachment with the trial in the Senate pending there is no doubt that the Democrats would behave in the same manner.
In short your country is screwed, you can't see that for obvious reasons as in you are so totally committed to one side, right or wrong and you can't see the forest for the trees.
I agree with Blackie on this, "American are fools" although I would modify the sentiment slightly, 'Americans are fools and are proud of it'. I suggest you put yourself outside of your current feelings on this issue and look at the material available without a jaundiced perspective other than as an American citizen you affected.
Hatred of the Democrats and/or the Republicans is understandable given the history of both since the end of WW II. I put the "and" in because a very large portion of eligible voters have chosen to not vote for either, likely because they see the two parties as basically what they are, conduits for the desires of the wealthy with no concern for the well being of the "people", of which you are one.
Bob (Pus Brain)
- This is apolitical trial and not a criminal one.
- It is nigh impossible or impossible for anyone to be truly neutral on anything. I also note that you do not request or care or point out that the Democrats are anything but neutral. Which once again shows that you are an utter fuck.
Remember fuckhead that the Democrats have been calling for impeachment since November 2016.
Representative Tlaib has been non-neutral for far long than November 2016. There is a video of her during her best cheerleading bit at a Trump speech.
Her tits were bouncing up and down like a harlot big time. Perhaps you felt the 12 on the Richter scale that day.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/07/20/flashback-video-of-tlaib-interrupting-trump-speech-in-2016-resurfaces-n2550364
PS: With a fat bod like hers, Tlaib will be a Type II diabetic shortly if not already. Of course she'll blame Trump for the results of her gluttony.
Tlaib, Mounds & Mounds of fun that one.
Anon
What part of "Now on the other hand, if it was a Democrat President facing impeachment with the trial in the Senate pending there is no doubt that the Democrats would behave in the same manner." did you not understand?
Pus Brain,
What did you not understand about your inverted posts being likened to B Poster's posts?
Seeing as they are so similar, I often do not read past the 1st sentence or two. You really have nothing truthful nor worthwhile ti impart.
We did have another impeachment. It was 2 decades ago. The terms offered to the Democrats were the same ones offered to them then. Those terms were agreed to by 45 Democrat Senators and 55 Republican Senators. That is 100%. Now Schumer and the rest of the pansies won't agree to those same terms?
Remember what a SOFREP contributor said about 3 years.
Anon
Okay left handed apology is accepted.
There was no compliment. You are still the inverted, perverted freak that you were and are.
Anon
What is your native language because it sure as hell isn't English.
That is rich from you freak. You misspelled eon as ion.
LMAO, but ur an idjit.
Anon
“If you cannot prove a man wrong, don’t panic. You can always call him names.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Interesting people that you quote. You're probably very flexible like Obama.
Anon
Like a lot of Presidents in the past 50 years Obama did as he was told. Trump on the other hand doesn't need to be told because basically his is in tune with the country's controllers, i.e., the very wealthy. Why do you think he gave such generous tax rebates to the wealthy when the country was in such dire financial stress?
Post a Comment