House Judiciary Committee's top Democrat on the Phone while riding a Train - overheard

Not such a surprise that the Dems will use their new power in the House for this, but still, putting party ahead of Country...

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D) who will likely chair the House Judiciary Committee in 2019 was overheard talking loudly on his phone to several callers on an Amtrak train from New York to Washington on Wednesday, about post-election strategy – and has been overheard by a reporter.

One of the calls were about how the Democrats are planning to start the Impeachment against President Trump as well as against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Conservative blog The Federalist published the result, a blow-by-blow account of New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler's plan for House Democrats to launch a series of investigations into President Donald Trump and ultimately pursue his impeachment over the unproven theory that his 2016 campaign colluded with Russian agents.

Nadler also revealed that he is hopeful Democrats will impeach Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose contentious Senate confirmation hearings this fall featured uncorroborated claims of sexual assault.

To a second caller he was talking about identity politics and he was worrying aloud that Demorcats will be blamed if the Trump boom slows down, since the economy is blooming at the moment.

Nadler's phone calls on Wednesday included one with an unnamed incoming member of Congress who he advised on committee assignments. In another call, according to The Federalist, he 'lamented identity politics and the thriving economy,' worrying aloud that Demorcats will be blamed if the Trump boom slows down.

Again these plans should be no surprise to anyone, however Democrats should be much more careful to give away their "genious" plans so easily. This is just as idiotic as it gets...

Daily Mail

Twichy.com

You know because so many folks want to see the Kavanaugh trials re-fought in the House. The Senate results should have showed them that. Every democrat who voted NO got voted out with the excepted of one and that one was a close call.

It is my understanding that 2/3 of the House has to vote for impeachment, and then the Senate has to vote to approve. If this is the case, they will be wasting time and taxpayer moneys on this shenanigan.

Can someone clarify on how this works?

sounds made up to me..
like his phone was tapped and they wanted to find a way to release the info.

originally posted by: Tekaran
It is my understanding that 2/3 of the House has to vote for impeachment, and then the Senate has to vote to approve. If this is the case, they will be wasting time and taxpayer moneys on this shenanigan.

Can someone clarify on how this works?

I think it's more about starting new investigations...and then leaking s#it to their friends in the MSM.

There were statements by the Dems that if they won congress that was their plan.. What bothers me more than their evil self centered plans are the Americans that actually voted for democrats in the mid terms unaware the never ending hate and lies would not stop..

originally posted by: Tekaran
It is my understanding that 2/3 of the House has to vote for impeachment, and then the Senate has to vote to approve. If this is the case, they will be wasting time and taxpayer moneys on this shenanigan.

Can someone clarify on how this works?

The House can impeach with a simple majority, but it requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove, something which has never happened, and certainly will not this time. I'm really hoping they do impeach both Trump and Kavenaugh. Republicans tried impeaching Clinton back in the 90's and it blew up in their faces -- they didn't have the votes to remove him, and Republicans got whipped with a belt in the next elections. It's not a stretch to say the impeachment fiasco probably ensured Clinton's reelection.

a reply to: IAMTAT
Continuing deflections away from the true culprits of russia collusion associated with the dem. party. Stall, stall, stall until it all goes away.

a reply to: szino9


No big deal. Nadler has said these things publicly on several occasions, before the election. Now he's just signaling his intent of fulfilling promises.

a reply to: Tekaran

That's the part I don't get either. dems must know it will not go through the Senate, waste of money, time and energy.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The House can impeach with a simple majority, but it requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove, something which has never happened, and certainly will not this time.

Actually, the Senate had the votes to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned.

Personally, I don't think the Dems will really try to impeach Trump before Mueller releases his report, or perhaps after, if the courts find that Trump violated the "Emolument Clause". If they do, it will result in their defeat in 2020. But, if there's a damning ruling or report, it could happen.

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: Tekaran

That's the part I don't get either. dems must know it will not go through the Senate, waste of money, time and energy.

It beats actually doing their jobs.

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: Tekaran

That's the part I don't get either. dems must know it will not go through the Senate, waste of money, time and energy.

Not if the goal is really to leak to the press and smear.

I don’t think you should be able to impeach someone without evidence of an actual crime having been committed. You don’t get to punish someone without any proof of wrongdoing or at least you shouldn’t be able to do that, but what the hell...Dems are nuts.

a reply to: szino9

Who in their right mind would and did vote for Democrats?

a reply to: 727Sky

There were quite a few who ran as moderates on a more kumbaya platform. Either they were lying or people just chose to not believe that this was going to be the outcome.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

As far as you guys are concerned, Trump being Trump is reason enough to impeach because you guys have demonstrated over and over that you have no real understanding of actual law, so the House is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If there had been actual reason to remove him, it would have been moved quickly long ago because an actual traitor would not and should not have been allowed to continue in office this long.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

As far as you guys are concerned, Trump being Trump is reason enough to impeach because you guys have demonstrated over and over that you have no real understanding of actual law, so the House is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

If there had been actual reason to remove him, it would have been moved quickly long ago because an actual traitor would not and should not have been allowed to continue in office this long.

Blah blah blah with your facts Kets. My feelings are more important. What is the word again? Truthiness? Yeah. Thats what matters.

a reply to: szino9

Is there any proof this a real story? The federalist isnt exactly fair and biased.

Unfortunately it wouldn't surprise me.

a reply to: szino9

Well he better start scrambling to figure out how he intends to impeach kavanaugh who has no impeachable offense and with RBG replacement imminent. Id like to see what bullcrap dems pull when Amy Coney Barrett is appointed.