Politics and Religion
If they had the votes they would hold the impeachment vote.
Hoax
-- Modified on 10/15/2019 6:07:40 PM
Pelosi and Schiff announced tonight that they will not hold a vote to impeach on the floor of the house, which as Dev said earlier, means they don't have the Dem votes even though they have MORE than 50% of the House (All they need is 218 of their 235 Dems). They will continue with the sham investigation they are hiding from the American voters which means they cannot enforce any of their subpoenas in a federal court. They have castrated themselves. They will quickly lose more Dems on impeachment.
But putting it to a vote would mean getting it on record that the 30 something Congressmen/women up for re-election in red districts supported this sham impeachment that EVERYONE, including Pelosi/Schiff knows is going nowhere. Those are going to be the real losers in this whole impeachment sham. It could even flip the House red again.
pretty well with the random elections to fill vacancies. We'll see how the runoff goes in November in Louisiana to get a better idea. The primary was 46% for the Dem, and 28% and 24% for the respective Republicans. If the GOP unites behind a single candidate, they should take the seat. The two recent wins in North Carolina was a bit of a barometer as well.
I think the Trump strategy for 2020 will be to appeal to the public after two years of Dem obstruction, that if they are going to vote for him, to give him a GOP Congress as well, so they can work together to do some really great things for the American people and double the results of his first two years when it was all Republicans controlling Congress. Most people are still benefiting from the achievements of those first two years and I think they will support throwing out the Dems completely.
First of all, the question of the vote is all about politics. Some of the newer Dem House members are from red districts and would prefer not to be on the record with a vote for impeachment. Naturally, the Reps would like to pin them down, making their re-election more difficult.
Second, I'll repeat myself AGAIN: there is NO language in the Constitution requiring a vote at this point.
Most important: you seem to be deaf to what's actually happening in the hearings. EVERY person from State who testified has said Trump or Giuliani interfered in US policy through the back channel to try to force Ukraine into a bogus "investigation" of the Bidens that fits Trump's narrative but has no connection to the world of actual facts.
Running around bellowing "hoax" and "fake news" doesn't change reality: the anti-Biden allegations are a classic "tissue of lies" designed to cover up Trump's clumsy attempts to help his re-election chances by forcing Ukraine to make up charges against the Bidens by withholding military aid.
"We need a favor though" simply ON ITS OWN is an impeachable offense. It is, prima facie, a violation of the law which forbids seeking the aid of a foreign government in an election. Not to mention a violation of Trump's oath of office.
-- Modified on 10/16/2019 6:48:30 AM
spin the request to investigate corruption as a request to "Did up dirt on a political rival." The DOJ has already looked at the transcript and said there is no "there" there. BTW, is the alleged "law" you claim was violated codified somewhere? If not, then its not a law, its just Dems' wishful thinking. Even, arguendo, if it were a law, are you saying that Obama violated the law when he mounted a US effort to interfere in the Israeli election?
The DOJ is in the tank for Trump, courtesy of his mouthpiece the AG.
The FBI and CIA were in he tank for Hillary? If she had won, we would never know how deep the corruption runs. Durham will sort it out. Oh wait, is he in the tank for someone, too? Geez, you're starting to parrot Laffy again with your conspiracy theories. If you want to take a vacation, you can put your posting in HIS capable hands, since you both sound the same lately. You can trust him to leave no conspiracy theories unmentioned.
You've got a lot of credibility riding on him delivering multiple high-level indictments. We'll be watching.
Especially since you lost what little credibility you had left when your Mueller limb was sawed off from under you.
I predict that CDL is going to look a LOT smarter than you after Durham finishes with his investigation than you did when Old Man Mueller finished his, not to mention Durham will most likely even know the details of his own investigation when he gets his chance in front of the camera, unlike that poor old doddering fool Mueller who needed to be prompted to answer everything but his own name.
Yes, we will be watching indeed
When he doesn't have a shred of it here. It has been peeled away by many, MANY years of the stupid, tendentious, twisted, bullshit-filled, deranged rantings of a complete political hack.
Oh, and you're WRONG about Mueller, too. And will be about Durham.
to Friday before melting down.
What's up with CDL is GOING to look a lot smarter than Jake? I already do. But you're right. Its just going to get worse. Does he like eating his crow grilled or sautéed?
Telling Putin he would be more flexible AFTER the election.
Oh the outrage you showed on that one!
Phony Jake strikes again..rolf
He basically said, "Yeah, he did it. So what! Get over it."
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!