Top diplomat in Ukraine gave "damning" testimony

a reply to: Xtrozero

Just heard on CNN that a house impeachment vote has been pushed back until after Christmas if ever. The Witnesses are not panning out the way Adam shiff hoped they would.

It looks like Pelosi and shiff are going to have to come up with a new whistleblower, or fabricate some other fake accusations against President Trump.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Where does The Constitution give the House authority to bypass The Constitution and declare themselves a Judicial Branch ?

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, it's a political process. You don't even have to have committed a crime to get impeached.

Just remember all this when this kangaroo process is used to remove the next Democrat to take office with a Republican House.

Republican's #1 agenda is to do whatever it takes to keep Democrats out of office. Why now is it bad that Democrats join their own version of that quest?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Where does The Constitution give the House authority to bypass The Constitution and declare themselves a Judicial Branch ?

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, it's a political process. You don't even have to have committed a crime to get impeached.

Just remember all this when this kangaroo process is used to remove the next Democrat to take office with a Republican House.

Republican's #1 agenda is to do whatever it takes to keep Democrats out of office. Why now is it bad that Democrats join their own version of that quest?

Umm, yeah, so because Republicans keep getting elected, Democrats have to cheat?!

a reply to: ketsuko

... AND Senate. Republican House Majority AND 2/3 Senate would be necessary for removal.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xtrozero

Just heard on CNN that a house impeachment vote has been pushed back until after Christmas if ever. The Witnesses are not panning out the way Adam shiff hoped they would.

It looks like Pelosi and shiff are going to have to come up with a new whistleblower, or fabricate some other fake accusations against President Trump.

OK, this is just getting pathetic. I wouldn't piss on CNN if their hair was on fire, but if they actually reported this, then it sure sounds like Schiff, et all, have been holding testimony in secret because they knew the testimony might bomb.

a reply to: ketsuko

I mean you can view it that way, sure.

Its the same reason the US HAD TO HAVE 1300 Benghazi hearings about Hillary......

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Where does The Constitution give the House authority to bypass The Constitution and declare themselves a Judicial Branch ?

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, it's a political process. You don't even have to have committed a crime to get impeached.

Where does The Constitution give the authority to bypass and/or ignore The Constitution ?

All Congress People swear an oath to The Constitution right ? 😎 🐇

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Fools

You have not read a transcript of the phone call. You have read a summary of the phone call.
The testimony of those who were privy to it or privy to the people who were are laying out what has been described as "troubling" testimony. These are law makers and the adjective "troubling" is polite speak.

The transcript is a full transcript. 😎🐇

The liberal Mainstream media is upset because this new whistleblower will not reveal who he or she is. Go figure..

www.cnbc.com...

Democrats and liberal media are flailing about like they are drowning in their own frustration.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

... AND Senate. Republican House Majority AND 2/3 Senate would be necessary for removal.

What happens if 2/3 is not a round whole number ? 😧

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Trump will eat her lunch, you and I both know it... During the recent debate she has shown she looks smart if she stays on her talking points, but she can not get an inch off without crashing and burning...Trump is extremely happy outside of his talking points and will take her there every time...

Desperate times call for desperate actions...

Talking about Trump eating their lunch, look at how many Democrats are openly fantasizing about a "savior" emerging to take the nomination next year: Michelle Obama, Mark Cuban, a couple other guys whose names escape me at the moment, and even Hillary Clinton.

You know you're in desperate straights when you're counting on Hillary to be your knight in shining armor.

originally posted by: carewemust
The liberal Mainstream media is upset because this new whistleblower will not reveal who he or she is. Go figure..

www.cnbc.com...

Democrats and liberal media are flailing about like they are drowning in their own frustration.

How can a whistleblower even be real if they don't submit an ID and Name ? 😧

a reply to: carewemust

I see absolutely no factual correlation between your post and your source.

What in the article supports your point?

a reply to: xuenchen

Whistleblower Protection Act

a reply to: Extorris

But we had a statement from the same guy = just a few days back - that said there was no QPQ?

So - who got to him?

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Extorris

But we had a statement from the same guy = just a few days back - that said there was no QPQ?

So - who got to him?

Huh, I thought this was Taylor (and his notes) refuting Sondland's insistence that there wasn't QPQ.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody

If Americans respond to unending Trump ads then he deserves re-election.

I thought that it was why the news spent so much time covering how much money hillary had and how much trump didn't spend last time?

Reporting fundraising numbers makes for horse-race gossip and the News Media covered it in 2016 as they always do, but apart from a minimum balance to compete, who has the most money doesn't consistently correlate to who wins. Mostly because Americans hate political advertising.

so then about your quote?

If Americans respond to unending Trump ads then he deserves re-election.

so what about the hulabaloo about all the free time trump got from the msm
or is that not ads?
what about his current rallies?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

... AND Senate. Republican House Majority AND 2/3 Senate would be necessary for removal.

But the House can impeach all they want. It's just a political process. No president who does the typical and loses the House to the opposition in his or her first midterm should ever expect to not be impeached again.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

... AND Senate. Republican House Majority AND 2/3 Senate would be necessary for removal.

But the House can impeach all they want. It's just a political process. No president who does the typical and loses the House to the opposition in his or her first midterm should ever expect to not be impeached again.

Hmmm ... maybe the system is not all it's cracked up to be.

Eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The system was fine for 200 years and then the Democrats decided the we needed to do something new because ... progress or something. Who needs to follow precedent and stuff, amirite? ORANGE MAN BAD!