Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

McConnell: Pelosi gains no ‘Leverage’ by ‘Refraining From Sending Us Something We Do Not Want’

McConnell: Pelosi gains no ‘Leverage’ by ‘Refraining From Sending Us Something We Do Not Want’

Pelosi continues to whine that the Senate has not shown “anything that looks fair” to the Democrats in regards to the Senate trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujqueBcVGDA

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi still will not commit to sending Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump.

She claims that her party has not “seen anything that looks fair to us.”

McConnell laughed it off.

Politico reported that a few “liberals have argued that Pelosi has leverage over McConnell, arguing she can withhold sending impeachment managers to the Senate to pressure him into negotiating with Schumer.”

McConnell shot back:

Earlier in the morning, he said, “It’s like the prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country and second-guessing whether they even want to go to trial.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Pelosi is a craven fool. Everyone with half a brain sees through this sham. And her rabid base will burn her at the stake when they realize she can’t get Trump out of office.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Paul. | December 19, 2019 at 8:09 pm

    She may be a fool, but we shouldn’t be.

    Pelosi is third in line in succession to the Presidency.

    In theory, if she removed both Trump and Pence, she would become President.

    She should be hit hard with her obvious conflict of interest. It ought to be our only talking point. The sloppy job she did in with the hearing are nothing more than a naked attempt at a coup d’etat.

    Lanceman in reply to Paul. | December 19, 2019 at 8:20 pm

    Is she? Or is she f ucked with the unintended consequences in helping create today’s democrat base?

    Remember how giddy they were when this country foolishly elected an unaccomplished black man to the Presidency from out of literally nowhere on the basis of being black?

    Watch her lately. She’s literally half-drunk most of the time. It’s not senility. She needs a few miracles.

    4fun in reply to Paul. | December 19, 2019 at 9:08 pm

    Problem is democrats don’t have even half a brain. Even one percent would be giving them too much credit.

(Pelosi) claims that her party has not “seen anything that looks fair to us.”

She just described the previous 3 years of the entire Democrat / MSM cabal.

You have to infer the respective audiences they have differ.

Fair in a complaint means a 50-50 chance of getting the spectacle they want.

The ‘fairness’ of a trial has always been in the eyes of the defendant, President Trump! The freakin’ PROSECUTION isn’t entitled to FAIRNESS, and so far, nothing about this sham has been ‘fair’, so too late Nanshy.

Are their any lawyers on this site who can explain to us non-lawyers what happens if Pelosi does not send the articles to the a Senate? Do they expire or what? Why does the Senate need to wait on the speaker? Can’t McConnell start the trial with copies of the articles from archives?

    Lanceman in reply to higgledy. | December 19, 2019 at 8:22 pm

    Very good question. Do impeachment articles expire with this Congress?

    Ask 10 lawyers and you’ll likely get at least 3 different opinions.

    We are in uncharted territory with no guidance from the constitution other than the house has the sole power to impeach. So my best answer is, it’s up to the house.

    Not a lawyer, thank God 🙂

    Barry in reply to higgledy. | December 20, 2019 at 1:02 am

    Here is one such opinion by a Harvard law professor. I find it persuasive as it treats impeachment as a process, not just a vote. It is not something I had considered earlier.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

    Colonel Travis in reply to higgledy. | December 20, 2019 at 2:02 am

    Articles of impeachment do not expire but Congress must be in session. Doesn’t have to be the same session. This is in the House rules. For example, Clinton was impeached by the 105th Congress and tried by the 106th Congress. Same thing happened with Alcee Hastings (100th, 101st).

    The Constitution does not tell the Senate how to conduct a trial, just as it does not tell the House how to conduct the impeachment.

      In other words, she is hoping the next Senate will be majority Dems.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Colonel Travis. | December 20, 2019 at 5:24 pm

      Here’s what I’d like to see:
      Pelosi sits on the articles through the election to hold the impeachment over Trump’s head. But the Republicans take back the House, and on a simple majority vote quash/repeal/recall (whatever they might call it) the articles. The Dems will howl, but such a situation has never happened before so there is no precedent. If there is no rule against it, I think it would fly.

    Cleetus in reply to higgledy. | December 20, 2019 at 5:50 am

    While I am not sure of the legal ramifications of withholding the impeachment articles from the Senate, it is clear it will be devastating for the Democrats.
    >
    Remember, it was Schiff et.al., that demanded a rushed schedule in the House for various reasons. It was this rush that was used as an excuse to not use the courts to try and force the testimony of various high ranking Trump administration officials who were involved in the Ukraine affair which then led to the argument that asserting executive privilege forcing a time consuming/demanding court decision was obstruction of justice. Additional arguments related to the need to rush were made to justify other unusual behavior (usually used to justify why Trump should not be allowed the ability to defend himself).
    >
    With this self imposed delay for the absurd reason of trying to have the minority party force the majority to conduct the Senate portion of impeachment according to what Democrats want only serves to negate these arguments made by the House and shows the reasons made for rushing to be the political BS they are. Additionally, using the transmittal of the impeachment articles as blackmail only reinforces the impropriety of the Democrat’s behavior (especially after forcing clearly partisan and unfair rules in the House).
    >
    The first rule of holes is to stop digging when you find yourself in one, but Pelosi and company cannot seem to grasp this idea. I keep thinking that they cannot be this stupid and that they must have something very sneaky up their sleeves, but that does not appear to be the case. Perhaps they are as dumb as a bunch of rocks. (My apologies to rocks everywhere for that comparison.)

      DaveGinOly in reply to Cleetus. | December 20, 2019 at 5:39 pm

      Nadler weaseled out of granting the Republicans a day of witnesses before the Judiciary Committee by labeling it a “delaying tactic” and saying that there was nothing in the rules permitting the opposition to use the requirement to allow opposition witnesses to delay the proceedings. So he summarily rejected the request, ignoring the rule by imposing his own interpretation upon the Republican request.

      Now it seems the Dems have time to delay as long as they wish.

      McConnell should just declare the rules in the Senate for the trial. When the Dems object, he should point out that Pelosi initiated the impeachment without a vote in the House, and the he’s doing nothing but what that precedent permits him to do – declare the start of a phase of the impeachment process unilaterally, with no input from the minority. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    mailman in reply to higgledy. | December 20, 2019 at 1:01 pm

    Well according to one of the Democrat legal scholars who appeared as the Dem expert witness a couple weeks ago merely holding a vote doesn’t impeach Trump because impeachment is a process, not a vote.

The speaker of the house represents a place where people routinely evacuate their bowels on sidewalks, streets, in grocery stores and live as feral humans.

She was born in Baltimore.

Say no more.

BTW, I find it outrageous Pelosi trying to bull the Senate.

    Lanceman in reply to higgledy. | December 19, 2019 at 8:25 pm

    She has no choice. It’s all or nothing. Hail Mary. Placating her ‘moderate’ old guard while attempting to placate the squad on running radical challengers to other incumbents.

OwenKellogg-Engineer | December 19, 2019 at 7:52 pm

If the House did not finalize the articles and does not send them to the Senate, was there really an impeachment??

If the last three years are any indication, the only thing the Democrats would see as an indication of a fair trial is, to see the Republicans building a set of gallows in the well of congress and recusing themselves to be replaced with large marsupials.

I will attempt to answer the question of ‘Is this an impeachment?’

Constitution and HoR and Senate rules come into play.

1. Articles are presented to HoR for vote. Constitution check
2. HoR select and vote to empower managers for the Articles during trial in Senate. HoR precedent and current rule not constitutional requirement.
3. HoR holds vote to have Articles ‘presented/delivered’ to the Senate. HoR precedent and current rule in HoR not required by Constitution.
4. Senate receive articles from HoR and only then adopt ‘rules’ for conduct of trial. Precedent and current Senate rule, not required by Constitution.

So in summary by HoR rule the d could wait to deliver the articles to the Senate. Under current Senate rule the Senate must wait until then to begin.

BUT nothing prevents the Senate from voting to change that Senate rule, though I believe they would have to also vote to repeal passage from 2/3 to simple majority.

AND since the Constitution is silent on all the minutia POTUS could apply to SCOTUS, in my opinion, for relief based upon;
1. Speedy trial denial
2. HoR impediment to Senate action carrying out the Senate Constitutional requirements to hold the trial once the HoR passed the Articles.
3. Rules of the bicameral house do not override the black letter requirements of the Constitution regarding impeachment
4. That a political delay by one house of our bicameral congress somehow damages POTUS institutionally and immediately harms ability to conduct his duties; China trade, USMCA, Afghanistan withdrawal/negotiations with Taliban for peace…..

Legally, assuming that HoR continues to refuse to submit articles and get away with it, IMO the Articles die upon termination of this Congress January 2021. The next Congress would have to renew by passing them in the new Congress.

Politically, HoR may be able to wait until they reconvene on 7 January but McConnell can then say ‘it has been 3 weeks so either send them or we nuke 2/3 rule and take them up’ I believe that is what will happen.

Best analogy is the HoR pulled the pin on a grenade and can’t put it back in, so they can toss it to the Senate where it will be defeated or hold onto it where it will expire.

    Close The Fed in reply to CommoChief. | December 19, 2019 at 10:14 pm

    I haven’t recently read the Constitution re: impeachment, trial, verdict, but will accept CommoChief’s delineation.

    However, running to SCOTUS over a clash between the exec and the legislative is wrong.

    SCOTUS is not a superior branch. This is a political battle between POTUS and the Senate and the House.

    McConnell should play the hardest ball he has in his life, and kill this in the most aggressive manner known to Democrats – NOT known to republicans because they don’t know how to fight- but in the MOST AGGRESSIVE MANNER KNOWN TO DEMOCRATS. He should give them their own medicine, GOOD and HARD.

    Shove it down their throats and make them gag on every shred of it.

    Make this course of action their ever-loving regret.

      Were McConnell honest, we would get that. But he’s not entirely on Trump’s side.

      I’m certain he has no nefarious plan to see Trump convicted, don’t get me wrong. But does he plan to make this as painless for President Trump as possible? Beats me.

      “However, running to SCOTUS over a clash between the exec and the legislative is wrong.

      SCOTUS is not a superior branch. This is a political battle between POTUS and the Senate and the House. ”

      while it’s not superior to the other branches of Govt it is the tie breaker, when ever there is a conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches of Govt, it decides whom is correct, I believe it is one of the enumerated authorities in the Constitution.

    Lanceman in reply to CommoChief. | December 20, 2019 at 12:18 am

    That’s as good an explanation as any, I guess.

    Voyager in reply to CommoChief. | December 20, 2019 at 2:52 pm

    Honestly I’ve been going back and forth over this one myself. At this point I suspect it is purely a question of which chamber what’s to do what, and who can make it stick.

    I do suspect if either party appeals to the Supreme Court they’re going to get back a responce on the order of:

    “The House has sole power of impeachment, and the Senate has sole authority of the trial. You two work out what that means amongst yourselfs. Not. Our. Problem.”

    Beyond that, the whole thing is just going to be political fodder for the next year or two.

    In the end, I suspect that is the most healthy result from this impeachment silliness. No-one is going to remove a president for being what he ran as. It will take a president being something so completely offensive and alien to the reason people voted for them to get a sufficient majority to remove them that there no more value in using it just because they offend the other party.

It’s difficult to see an upside to Impeachment in this case. The electorate is smart enough to see the Dems/Progs ploy. This should backfire, big time.

That last Botox needle went too deep!

Democratic House Speaker Batsh*t Crazy Nancy Pelosi is an existential threat you our republic.

She is the prime example why women would not rule the world any better than men.

Thanks to Leslie for the link to rantingly.com which led to:

http://andmagazine.com/talk/2019/12/17/scorched-earth-policy/

Scorched Earth Policy

The term “scorched earth” conjures up images of an adversary that would rather burn its own crops and raze its own cities than see them fall into enemy hands. It implies desperation and ruthlessness. We see images of Russian armies retreating across a frozen landscape in front of Napoleon’s advancing troops setting fire to the landscape as they go.

Or of Democrats, defeated at the polls, willing to burn a nation and its institutions to the ground rather than suffer the indignity of accepting Donald Trump as President.

Whether or not what has transpired over the last three years was the result of a deliberate conspiracy is I suppose something on which reasonable men and women can disagree. I am convinced personally that the evidence will ultimately prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that well before the summer of 2016 and the initiation of Crossfire Hurricane, powerful men and women inside our government were working very hard, and outside the law, to sabotage now President Trump’s candidacy. I can understand, however, how others may not yet be willing to accept that conclusion.

What we are now seeing, however, is a fundamental change in the nature of the “game” and way in which it is played. Truth may always have been malleable. It is now irrelevant. The law may always have been stretched. It is now disregarded entirely. The only thing that matters is victory. Winning at all costs and using any method necessary.

President Trump is in the White House. His Democratic opponents refuse to accept that or accommodate themselves to it in any fashion. They will burn the nation and its institutions to the ground if need be to remove him from office, and it is we, the American people, who will be left standing on the scorched earth that policy creates.

nancy pelosi is engaged in “Obstruction of the Senate” by not forwarding their fake articles. She is also engaged in “Abuse of Power” in being ONE individual withholding the votes (the will) of 427 members of congress (or at least the will of the Republican representatives who realize we need to move forward and get this behind us). Since the (purported) purpose of the “impeachment” vote was to initiate a Senate trial, nancy is also engaged in “Obstruction of congress” and the accompanying charge of “Abuse of Power.” 427 representatives voted. For ONE person (nancy pelosi) to withhold the vote is naked abuse of power on it’s face.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate has to wait for the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate in order for the Senate to hold a trial.

McConnell should go onto the Senate floor and hold up a copy of both articles of impeachment and say, “I have both impeachment articles in my hand. Consider them transmitted. The trial starts on Jan 2, 2020 at 930 AM. To Speaker Pelosi and the House I say this: Be there on the above date or don’t be there but this Senate will have a trial.”

And on Jan 2, 2020 if the House lawyers don’t show up at 930 AM he should motion to dismiss both articles of impeachment.

    Voice_of_Reason in reply to TheOldZombie. | December 20, 2019 at 12:27 pm

    I’ve been saying the same thing

    I’ve seen this question posed on multiple sites and the most reasonable explanation I’ve seen is as follows: Once the Articles of Impeachment are placed into the official Congressional record, they immediately become available to ALL members of Congress and are therefore actionable by the Senate. It does seem incredible that Pelousy hasn’t named the so-called House “managers” when this has been the obvious end-game for 3 years…

Obviously, the entire experiment of making a woman Speaker of the House is a failure. Women are just a bad as men, maybe worse, but equal rights and all that fluff as the forms of Kanly have been obeyed.

Voice_of_Reason | December 20, 2019 at 11:08 am

Mitch seems to have kept his faculties, Pelosi’s are waning, and Schiff never had any.

One important thing learned in therapy is “You’re only responsible for your side of the street.”
So Speaker Nancy there is no need for the Senate to make impeachment trial plans before receiving the bills of impeachment.

Will the House charge Mitch for obstructing Congress, and impeachment him?

All the Senate has to do is make the trial dependent on the House impeachment so McConnell can schedule the trial anytime he wants and if the House refuses to show up the Senate will have no choice but to reject conviction..

Do Pelosi’s minions understand that the old girl just took a dive?

McConnell should set a trial date, say, 13 January 2020. That gives the Democrat impeachment managers three weeks to prepare. If they are not prepared on the trial date, the Senate should dismiss the charges. No continuances.
Of course, this would mean that some of the poor darling will have to work over the holidays. I doubt if they will get any sympathy.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend