Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nancy Pelosi: 'I'm not for impeachment,'

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Then you have no evidence and if you're going to state or intimate that you disagree that the Mueller investigation has been free of leaks, please give examples. If not, then you're just making things up. Thought better of you. I guess that you're 'all in' with the Trump line of lies, distortions, etc. That is really a shame.
    Why is it that your default is to attack the speaker rather than the message.
    The fact that I may disagree with you is not proof that I am "all in" with trump, nor does it mean I am wrong.
    Trump isn't relevant to my analysis. If my logic was based on trump, then you should find it pretty easy to take my position apart. But you don't. Instead, you attack me as if being "pro-trump" is enough to prove that I am wrong.

    Is my logic wrong? Maybe. But the fact that you cannot address my logic without making it about trump says more about the weakness of your position than mine.


    As four Mueller, a search on "mueller leaks" provides my evidence.
    For instance:
    Special counsel Robert S. Muellerís investigation into Russian interference must be nearing its end. Weíve reached the leaking endgame.

    Late Monday, the New York Times reported that it had obtained a list of nearly 50 questionsthat Mueller has submitted to President Trumpís lawyers.
    https://www.latimes.com/la-ol-enter-...htmlstory.html
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      It's called impeachment.

      And that is identified and described in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 4. And the 'effort' itself is not being pushed or supported by the Speaker of the House. And there are enough grounds for it based on Trump's actions such as obstruction of justice which is being discussed.

      That isn't a coup. And you haven't stated what a coup is. Need a lesson?

      And impeachment is not a legal action, it's a political action.

      What grounds?
      I have been asking the same question for months.
      If there are no "grounds", then it is not really impeachment.

      I note that while you are demanding that I respond to any question you throw at me (regardless of relevance), you have avoided answering mine.
      I asked what would you call " an effort to remove a legally elected sitting president when the leaders of that effort canít identify any basis for that removal?"
      You didn't answer that question. You answered one I didn't ask.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Massena View Post

        It's called impeachment.

        And that is identified and described in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 4. And the 'effort' itself is not being pushed or supported by the Speaker of the House. And there are enough grounds for it based on Trump's actions such as obstruction of justice which is being discussed.

        That isn't a coup. And you haven't stated what a coup is. Need a lesson?

        And impeachment is not a legal action, it's a political action.

        Has he been charged with it? If not, then you're just making things up. Unfortunately by now no one thinks any better of you.
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by III Corps View Post

          She gave her reasons. She said unless there was compelling evidence and bipartisan support, she would not vote for impeachment because the process divides the country.
          Those are her excuses
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #35
            Nope. Those are reasons. And moving to impeach is useless unless there is a reasonable chance of success in the Senate. That's why Clinton's impeachment failed.

            And the Republicans in Congress do not have the stomach, moral courage, or backbone to go against Trump no matter what he does.
            We are not now that strength which in old days
            Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
            Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
            To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

            Comment


            • #36
              The same guy who has been posting multiple threads daily for two years demanding the Impeachment and removal from office of Trump, insisting there is abundant evidence of his wrong doings got his new marching orders from Pelosi and has joined in lock step to the partisan drum beat.
              the new mantra going into the election is the Republicans wonít ítjoin our witch hunt.
              The report from Mueller isnít public yet, how would she know there will not be enough Republicans join her and the Democrats after Muellers report comes out?
              its a simple question.
              Last edited by Urban hermit; 14 Mar 19, 10:11.
              Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
              Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post

                Have they ever in a long, long time?
                No...but they used to pretend to work sometimes. They don't even bother to do that anymore.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post


                  What grounds?
                  I have been asking the same question for months.
                  If there are no "grounds", then it is not really impeachment.

                  I note that while you are demanding that I respond to any question you throw at me (regardless of relevance), you have avoided answering mine.
                  I asked what would you call " an effort to remove a legally elected sitting president when the leaders of that effort canít identify any basis for that removal?"
                  You didn't answer that question. You answered one I didn't ask.
                  I would call it treason and so would many other Americans, especially military personnel since Trump is also the Commander-in-Chief.

                  Maybe a few years in prison would clarify Pelosi's scrambled thinking.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                    The same guy who has been posting multiple threads daily for two years demanding the Impeachment and removal from office of Trump, insisting there is abundant evidence of his wrong doings got his new marching orders from Pelosi and has joined in lock step to the partisan drum beat.
                    the new mantra going into the election is the Republicans wonít ítjoin our witch hunt.
                    The report from Mueller isnít public yet, how would she know there will not be enough Republicans join her and the Democrats after Muellers report comes out?
                    its a simple question.
                    To whom are you referring?
                    We are not now that strength which in old days
                    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      I would call it treason and so would many other Americans, especially military personnel since Trump is also the Commander-in-Chief.

                      Maybe a few years in prison would clarify Pelosi's scrambled thinking.
                      Criticizing a president is not treason. Perhaps you should look up in the Constitution what treason is by US law.

                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                        ...Those are her excuses...
                        Whatever helps you sleep at night.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by American87 View Post
                          We need more Trumps.
                          Well, because of nepotism, we have more than enough running around Washington and behaving incompetently.

                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I do not reply to the person I am referring to.
                            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                              I do not reply to the person I am referring to.
                              And you're also mistaken in your accusation.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                                How would you describe an effort to remove a legally elected sitting president when the leaders of that effort canít identify any basis for that removal?
                                The Left: legal removal procedures (based on lies, of course)
                                All of the normal people: a coup (based on observational evidence)
                                The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X