If anyone wants to know why Nancy Pelosi hasn't called a vote to impeach

[archives]

We have the entire report you lying hack; Barr didn't have to frame anything. It was available for you to read. Instead, you continue to ignorantly parrot a narrative you've been fed like a gullible dupe on steroids.

Anyone who actually read it, which we know you didn't, would walk away wanting to know how over a hundred plus documented contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia wasn't questionable, seemed they were doing everything but parking cars

billy barr framed it, got out ahead of it to stress his no collusion, no obstruction theme, but it is meaningless now, Americans don't have to digest a lengthy legalistic document now, all they got to remember now is do me "a favor"

 

[archives]

She has the majority now. She isn't calling for a vote for two reasons; (1) she might not get a majority; and (2) it places Democrats who come from red districts in jeopardy. You see, the Party of the Jackass isn't interested in gullible low IQ dupes like you. They are only interested in political power.

Poor Arsecheese; still stuck on moron.

Wrong again, shocking, she ain't calling for a vote cause she don't have to, and why would she, she currently has everything going her way

And how is she not going to get a majority, all she needs is 218 votes for a majority and there are currently 235 Democrats, she can allow seventeen of those in tough districts to vote no, it is a common political strategdy employed by both parties

Got any more misinformation to offer

 

[Truth Detector]

Anyone who actually read it, which we know you didn't, would walk away wanting to know how over a hundred plus documented contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia wasn't questionable, seemed they were doing everything but parking cars

I saved it on my computer. I have read it. You haven';t which is why you make these remarkable stupid claims you were fed by Rachel Maddow.

Here is the conclusion:

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Mueller Report; Page 182 V II:
I. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, ….. this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime…...

Now you find me something in the report that supports your bullshit Arsecheese.

billy barr framed it, got out ahead of it to stress his no collusion, no obstruction theme, but it is meaningless now, Americans don't have to digest a lengthy legalistic document now, all they got to remember now is do me "a favor"

Wrong; the report was released. No one needed Barr to interpret the conclusions. You low IQ meatheads continue to parrot Rachel Maddow's buffoonish bullshit like mentally challenged morons.

Cut and paste the part of the report that supports your bullshit Arsecheese.

 

[Truth Detector]

Wrong again, shocking, she ain't calling for a vote cause she don't have to, and why would she, she currently has everything going her way

Nothing is going her way Arsecheese. But I get it. Rachel Maddow told you so.

And how is she not going to get a majority, all she needs is 218 votes for a majority and there are currently 235 Democrats, she can allow seventeen of those in tough districts to vote no, it is a common political strategdy employed by both parties

Then why not have the vote today? What has she got to lose? She can end this clown show HOAX and get right to it.

Got any more misinformation to offer

What part of my posts is misinformation you lying dunce?

 

[archives]

Yes, she does. And no matter how many times you parrot that dumb, false narrative, that is how it is done. Otherwise, it is nothing more than a Partisan clown show.

Still wrong again, getting even funnier, no where in the Constitution does it specify a full House vote has to be taken to start an impeachment inquiry, and please, don't cite the prior case you think sets a precedent, it isn't even remotely applicable

And it isn't totally partisan, everyone of those GOP Congressmen sitting on the Committees can attend and ask questions just as if it were being shown live on TV, some fact they and Sean didn't mention

 

[Truth Detector]

Still wrong again, getting even funnier, no where in the Constitution does it specify a full House vote has to be taken to start an impeachment inquiry, and please, don't cite the prior case you think sets a precedent, it isn't even remotely applicable

It's called precedent you brain dead hack. Impeachment is a serious issue that can only be conducted if there is a full vote on the House floor. Pelosi isn't the House. She doesn't get to decide to shut the American people out of the process by having hearings behind closed doors.

You don't get to use second hand bullshit from an ANONYMOUS FAKE WHISTLE BLOWER and then tell the American people that they don't get to know who he/she is.

You don't get to fabricate a false narrative when the transcripts of the call don't support the claims of the ANONYMOUS FAKE WHISTLE BLOWER.

Most importantly, you don't get to LEAK selective statements from CLOSED door hearings and NOT release the transcripts of what has taken place while pretending to want transparency.

And it isn't totally partisan, everyone of those GOP Congressmen sitting on the Committees can attend and ask questions just as if it were being shown live on TV, some fact they and Sean didn't mention

It is TOTALLY partisan when Schiff refuses to release to the public the entire testimony while LEAKING peaces that support his lies dumbass.

Poor Arsecheese; he's permanently stuck on dishonest dumbass.

 

[Gonzomin]

There will be public hearings and I am certain the Reds will not like it. That is what showed the people what a crook Nixon was. In this case. the Dems are starting with insiders who are talking. just keep trotting out Trumpies who tell the truth and Daffy will be in real trouble. After the hearings, Nixon was informed that he would lose the vote in the Senate and he resigned to avoid it. I can see the Senate reds getting to the same spot.

 

[archives]

I saved it on my computer. I have read it. You haven';t which is why you make these remarkable stupid claims you were fed by Rachel Maddow.

Here is the conclusion:

Mueller Report; Page 173 V I: Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the Campaign coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities.

Barr: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.

Mueller Report; Page 182 V II:
I. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, ….. this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime…...

Now you find me something in the report that supports your bullshit Arsecheese.



Wrong; the report was released. No one needed Barr to interpret the conclusions. You low IQ meatheads continue to parrot Rachel Maddow's buffoonish bullshit like mentally challenged morons.

Cut and paste the part of the report that supports your bullshit Arsecheese.

That is pretty funny, "I have read it," yeah, just like you told us you read the FISA applications but couldn't tell us where the dossier first appeared

Since you "have it on your computer," pick it up on I believe page 64 or 68 and then get back to us and tell us the Russians weren't all over the Trump campaign

And for the last time billy barr purposely got out in front of the report to frame how it would be received, tell us, why did he have his famous press conference to summarize the report before the actual report was released to the press, Congress, or the American people?

 

[Truth Detector]

That is pretty funny, "I have read it," yeah, just like you told us you read the FISA applications but couldn't tell us where the dossier first appeared

What's funny is you pretending you know what's in it while you shriek like a spoiled little girl and claim no one else has. I cut and pasted the EXACT wording from the reoirt you clueless twat.

Meanwhile, all we see from you is stomping your feet and yelling "nuh uh." Grow up.

Since you "have it on your computer," pick it up on I believe page 64 or 68 and then get back to us and tell us the Russians weren't all over the Trump campaign

No, you pick up and paste where the report supports your bullshit claims asshat. That's how a debate with grown ups work; you make a stupid claim, you back it up.

I tell the truth; and I back it up. Try it you whiny petulant little girl.

And for the last time billy barr purposely got out in front of the report to frame how it would be received, tell us, why did he have his famous press conference to summarize the report before the actual report was released to the press, Congress, or the American people?

Again, for the clueless whiny little twat; Barr cannot get out in front of something that has been released in its entirety for anyone to read. You're dumber than mere stupid to keep bloviating that asinine Rachel Maddow talking point.

 

[Centerleftfl]

Wrong again, shocking, she ain't calling for a vote cause she don't have to, and why would she, she currently has everything going her way

And how is she not going to get a majority, all she needs is 218 votes for a majority and there are currently 235 Democrats, she can allow seventeen of those in tough districts to vote no, it is a common political strategdy employed by both parties

Got any more misinformation to offer

God, that has to piss off TRUMP. She's holding ALL the cards. Including for REPUBLICANS who want HER to hold the cards for them.

From another post I made...

PELOSI IS MORE BRILLIANT THAN I EVEN IMAGINED, WHY NOT TO CALL IMPEACHMENT VOTE!

Okay, stay with me here, folks! We've had 4 or 5 ongoing threads about CALL THE VOTE by PELOSI--all from the RIGHT. I just figured it was a unneeded technicality or it would have been done. It was explained well and succinctly by a CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR. There was no need to call a vote, it isn't in the 'operating manual'--the rules and procedures are established by the House. He didn't discuss it any further, just kinda 'asked and answered'.

So I see more calls on the R flank and this board asking for it. I'm rethinking, why are they so insistent? And why doesn't she? She very well could. Since she doesn't need it, why wouldn't she just for 'form'?

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE MORE YOU GUYS SCREAM FOR IT, THE LEAST LIKELY SHE WILL CALL THE VOTE. AND if she is smart, should she feel the need, she'll do it at the PEAK (or PIQUE) of your call for it (any one remember when OBAMA timed the release of his birth certificate?)

We are in the EVIDENTIARY portion of the program, folks. Fact finding. Gathering evidence. No JURY TAKES A VOTE while the prosecutors are gathering evidence, laying out the case and making charges.

Now, PAY ATTENTION HERE WINGERS! This is for YOU!

NANCY is giving cover to her own. No DEMS have to go on record. But make no mistake NANCY is giving cover to REPUBLICANS. They don't have to go on record. No grandstanding to the cameras, no threading needles to their constituency and TRUMP doesn't know who is in our out so he can take aim at them! I promise, the ones she has a good relationship with are begging her not to! (Plus, she gets to have the power of him swinging in the wind during the process). While she holds it off, REPUBLICANS can, listen, measure the evidence, equivocate as necessary, test it with their own and even grow a backbone!

This is MORE for giving REPUBLICANS SPACE than any DEMOCRAT. And not to mention BRINING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ALONG! Remember Nancy DOESN'T NEED ONE OF THEM if she can hold all her DEMS. Think about that.

That little 'nervous' sounding grandma with the gavel is not to be underestimated. She just GREW exponentially in my estimation. Madam Speaker gets a big gold star....

PS I figured this all out while making a pot of coffee this morning. It's not even hard.​

 

[archives]

It's called precedent you brain dead hack. Impeachment is a serious issue that can only be conducted if there is a full vote on the House floor. Pelosi isn't the House. She doesn't get to decide to shut the American people out of the process by having hearings behind closed doors.

You don't get to use second hand bullshit from an ANONYMOUS FAKE WHISTLE BLOWER and then tell the American people that they don't get to know who he/she is.

You don't get to fabricate a false narrative when the transcripts of the call don't support the claims of the ANONYMOUS FAKE WHISTLE BLOWER.

Most importantly, you don't get to LEAK selective statements from CLOSED door hearings and NOT release the transcripts of what has taken place while pretending to want transparency.

It is TOTALLY partisan when Schiff refuses to release to the public the entire testimony while LEAKING peaces that support his lies dumbass.

Poor Arsecheese; he's permanently stuck on dishonest dumbass.

And "truthie" is still wrong, there is zero precedent requiring Pelosi needs a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, nothing in the Constitution, but he keeps telling us it is illegal. When the inquiry is completed and if articles of impeachment are felt warranted they will be introduced to the full House for discussion and vote

At this point, don't need either whistle blower, Trump's transcript validated nearly everything they said

Sure you do, the Republicans on the Committee can do the same, in fact, they did it for ten years straight, are we forgetting Nunnes infamous memo

If they are collecting information why would they reveal now everything everyone has already testify allowing future witnesses to match up their testimony? Do Grand Juries, opps, I forgot, you don't know what they are

Keep trying, it is amusing

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Anyone who actually read it, which we know you didn't, would walk away wanting to know how over a hundred plus documented contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia wasn't questionable, seemed they were doing everything but parking cars

billy barr framed it, got out ahead of it to stress his no collusion, no obstruction theme, but it is meaningless now, Americans don't have to digest a lengthy legalistic document now, all they got to remember now is do me "a favor"

you idiots will never stop.......Mueller says you're fucked, Barr says you're fucked.......every rational human being says you're fucked.........you won't even admit the truth about what that favor was even though you have the transcript of the phone call......you still think Schiff was reading it to you......

 

[archives]

There will be public hearings and I am certain the Reds will not like it. That is what showed the people what a crook Nixon was. In this case. the Dems are starting with insiders who are talking. just keep trotting out Trumpies who tell the truth and Daffy will be in real trouble. After the hearings, Nixon was informed that he would lose the vote in the Senate and he resigned to avoid it. I can see the Senate reds getting to the same spot.

No, the Senate GOP has zero courage, other than two or three, they will vote the way Trump tells them, if it does reach the Senate it is done

But that is not the point, in the Senate, no matter how quick Mitch will try to move it along, all of Trump's ills will be exposed on live TV. It will be a Court Case, so the prosecution will get to air it all out infront of the American public

 

[archives]

you idiots will never stop.......Mueller says you're fucked, Barr says you're fucked.......every rational human being says you're fucked.........you won't even admit the truth about what that favor was even though you have the transcript of the phone call......you still think Schiff was reading it to you......

Thanks Sean, now get back to your radio

 

[Truth Detector]

And "truthie" is still wrong, there is zero precedent requiring Pelosi needs a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, nothing in the Constitution, but he keeps telling us it is illegal. When the inquiry is completed and if articles of impeachment are felt warranted they will be introduced to the full House for discussion and vote

Once again Arsecheese is full of shit. ALL previous impeachments were conducted that way. Kicking and screaming doesn't make you look less stupid.

At this point, don't need either whistle blower, Trump's transcript validated nearly everything they said

Once again Arsecheese lies about the contents; nothing the ANONYMOUS FAKE WHISTLE BLOWER claimed about the phone call using SECOND hand ANONYMOUS sources was confirmed by the actual call.

In fact, it proved they were lying.

Sure you do, the Republicans on the Committee can do the same, in fact, they did it for ten years straight, are we forgetting Nunnes infamous memo

Poor Arsecheese, still yammering, crying and lying.

If they are collecting information why would they reveal now everything everyone has already testify allowing future witnesses to match up their testimony? Do Grand Juries, opps, I forgot, you don't know what they are

The house doesn't conduct investigations over criminal conduct; that is the realm of the Justice Department. If they do not trust Barr, they can assign a special counsel. That is how REAL impeachment investigations are conducted. Not through a clown show held in private by partisan hacks in the Party of the Jackass.

Keep trying, it is amusing

Poor Arsechees doesn't know how stupid he looks. Good thing you lack the intelligence to have a scintilla of self awareness and common sense. You would be embarrassed.

 

[Truth Detector]

you idiots will never stop.......Mueller says you're fucked, Barr says you're fucked.......every rational human being says you're fucked.........you won't even admit the truth about what that favor was even though you have the transcript of the phone call......you still think Schiff was reading it to you......

Spot on!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Still wrong again, getting even funnier, no where in the Constitution does it specify a full House vote has to be taken to start an impeachment inquiry, and please, don't cite the prior case you think sets a precedent, it isn't even remotely applicable

And it isn't totally partisan, everyone of those GOP Congressmen sitting on the Committees can attend and ask questions just as if it were being shown live on TV, some fact they and Sean didn't mention

no where does the Constitution allow Nancy to substitute her single vote for that of the full chamber of the House.........and please explain why you think what was done in the case of both Nixon and Clinton does not set a precident for what is happening now?.....

not partisan?.......can the Republicans on the committee call witnesses like they could in the cases of Nixon and Clinton?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Thanks Sean, now get back to your radio

sure Nancy.......go back and hide from the requirements of the constitution because you know you don't have the votes........

 

[Truth Detector]

No, the Senate GOP has zero courage, other than two or three, they will vote the way Trump tells them, if it does reach the Senate it is done

So the GOP doesn't have courage if they don't support the Party of the Jackass clown show? STFU you moron.

But that is not the point, in the Senate, no matter how quick Mitch will try to move it along, all of Trump's ills will be exposed on live TV. It will be a Court Case, so the prosecution will get to air it all out infront of the American public

Thank you for the buffoonish narrative Rachel.

So far, the Party of the Jackass and the PHONY media has failed in every attempt to promote their HOAX and FAKE narratives. Keep flailing.

 

[Truth Detector]

Thanks Sean, now get back to your radio

Thanks Rachel Maddow; not shove that empty head up your arsecheese.