Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pelosi's Power Move

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

  • Pelosi's Power Move

    Pelosi knows her case is weak. The American people and Senate are ready to acquit. Her objective, if you ask me, was to have the Senate marshall out "witnesses," who would spread rumors and badmouth Trump. Then the media could say, "Republican witnesses implicate Trump," or some such sentence. Then, she hoped, the Senate Republicans would be pressured into a guilty verdict. Or, if they ruled not guilty, she could say "Look, their witnesses implicated Trump, and they still acquitted him. They're biased." What she doesn't want is Trump's witnesses to come out—the "whistleblower," Biden, Hunter. No. She wants her State Department witnesses like she had in the House.

    She may, and this is one of Rush's theories, have wanted to postpone the trial until they could build more evidence. That is, they put it off for weeks, hoping Trump says or does something that can be added to the case.

    In any event, her case, as it stands, is weak.

    Now McConnell has the voted to move forward, whatever that means, and she has to put her case before the Senate. And the Senate has no intention to hear her State Department witnesses. That's not their job. Trump wants to call Biden, the "whistleblower," and Hunter, but it's doubtful McConnell will do that. McConnel will just hear the case as it stands.
    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

  • #2
    If somehow witnesses do start to be called, it may very well be a case of the dam bursting and the Democrats trying to defend against Trump calling Biden, his son, the whistleblower, etc.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have wondering about Pelosi's decision to delay delivery of the proper papers to the Senate. Wouldn't the smart thing for McConnell to do have been just ignore everyone and everything until the proper paperwork arrived?

      He could simply say that he refuses to comment, discuss, or speculate on any hypothetical impeachment until one shows up on his desk. This would certainly serve to deflate any Congressional demands. The only response Congress should have received would be, "About what are you talking? I see nothing within my in-basket. Call me back when something arrives." Next order of business.
      ScenShare Guidelines:

      1) Enjoy creating it
      2) Enjoy playing it
      3) Enjoy sharing it
      4) Enjoy helping others create them

      The PlayersDB - The Harpoon Community's #1 Choice.

      FAQ http://www.harplonkhq.com/Harpoon/Fr...dQuestions.htm

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by American87 View Post
        ...Pelosi knows her case is weak...
        Please explain how you know that. Has she spoken to you about it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by III Corps View Post

          Please explain how you know that. Has she spoken to you about it?
          Yes, in the news, constantly. You didn't know?
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by III Corps View Post

            Please explain how you know that. Has she spoken to you about it?
            She doesn't want to send it to the Senate. If she was convinced her case was strong, and would lead to impeachment, she would have submitted it already. Instead, she was trying to get the Senate to retry the entire case. Why would she want that? Why couldn't she just try it in the House? Answer: she did, and her case is weak.
            "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

            "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

            Comment


            • #7
              The New Post-Trump Constitution
              By Victor Davis Hanson

              https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...nvestigations/

              The new normal: Impeachment as a routine partisan tool, endless investigations, lying under oath with impunity, surveillance of political enemies, zero accountability …
              Even when there is no chance of conviction in the Senate — as when the impeachment indictment is weak and the president’s own party controls the upper House — impeachment will nonetheless proceed, because it is now seen as a banal, politicized vote of no confidence and thus an occasionally useful political tool.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
                The New Post-Trump Constitution
                By Victor Davis Hanson

                https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...nvestigations/


                You know, I saw Hanson's name and It brought to my mind the fact that conservatives always talk about the liberal Stanford without mentioning that the same university has one of the most recognizable conservative think tanks (Hoover Institution) in which Hanson is a member...

                https://www.hoover.org/about/missionhistory


                Hanson and all those in the Hoover Institution are Stanford scholars too...but the RW media never mentions such uncomfortable facts

                https://www.hoover.org/profiles/victor-davis-hanson
                Last edited by pamak; 14 Jan 20, 18:11.
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Wow from CNN

                  Nancy Pelosi gambled and lost on the impeachment delay
                  https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/polit...ell/index.html

                  What Pelosi seemed to, uh, underestimate is the extent to which the Senate, by its very nature, resists being told what to do in any way, shape or form. While it is easy to lay all of that on McConnell, the truth of the matter is that the Senate has never liked being told what to do by the House. And the House has never liked being told what to do by the Senate. Each body views itself as an independent fiefdom, governed by its own rules and codes of conduct. The idea of one chamber telling the other what to do is simply anathema -- no matter which party is in charge of each.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OttoHarkaman View Post
                    Wow from CNN

                    Nancy Pelosi gambled and lost on the impeachment delay
                    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/polit...ell/index.html
                    And in a deeply intrenched male fiefdom, an abrasive female like Pelosi is anathema.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X