Nancy Pelosi Calls for Articles of Impeachment

| December 5, 2019

Impeachment would actually play into President Trump’s hands. (r/The_Donald)

A reading of the transcript for the phone call between President Trump and his now Ukrainian counterpart shows no quid pro quo. In fact, the Ukrainian side was not even aware of the issue with the military aid during the call. Both sides of the telephone call insist that there was no quid pro quo.

The Democrats recently brought in subject-matter expert professors. They advanced their opinion about how to go forward, and the Democrats used these experts’ opinions and backgrounds as leverage to move forward.

Result? Nancy Pelosi is calling for articles of impeachment to be drawn up.

From Fox News:

At Wednesday’s hearing, the three professors called upon by the Democratic majority on Wednesday expressed an urgency to impeach the president.

“If we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy–we live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship,” Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman said.

Reflecting on the testimony, Pelosi said the professors “illuminated without a doubt that the president’s actions are a profound violation of the public trust.”

Do they realize that once this gets to the Senate, different rules will apply? What the Republicans wanted to do in the House will finally be done in the Senate. People will be called forward, including witnesses that the Democrats did not want to call forward.

Evidence has to be brought to bear. This is going to be a different ball of wax… This issue is going to be taken up before or right when the 2020 presidential election campaign picks up. Based on information available, this is bound to blow up in the Democrats’ faces.

Fox News has more details here.

What was argued when a Democrat was president:

Category: Politics

Comments (110)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. David says:

    Not to mention that Al Green, D-Houston, isupset because of four supposed scholars called, none were non-white:

    Real Clear Politics Link

    You just can’t make this shit up.

    • Graybeard says:

      I’m ashamed to say he is from Texas, but along with all the good stuff being bigger and better in Texas, we have some bigger idiots to balance things out.

      Al Green is, unfortunately, one of those bigger idiots.

    • Combat Historian says:

      Fatty Nadler should have included Elizabeth Warren on the testimony panel. Beth is a supposed scholar and a 1/1024 honest injun…

    • rgr769 says:

      Al is rite. There should have been an obligatory NUF. What were the D-rats thinking? Certainly they could have found one with a law degree. I’ve been in court with one quite impressive one.

  2. Martinjmpr says:

    Yeah, this is a dumb “strategery” on the part of the Democrats, done to appease their rabid base.

    Democrats have spent too much time living in an imaginary bubble world where Republicans in the senate will cross party lines and vote to impeach a president of their own party.

    Not happening. No way, no day. Many in the Republican “establishment” may hate DJT (and personally I can’t stand the guy) but there is ZERO upside to Republican senators voting with the Dems on this. They win nothing, they alienate their own base and they gain absolutely no benefit from it.

    So regardless of the “merit” of the charges against Trump, there simply is no scenario outside the fevered imaginations of the most extreme Trump-haters in which the Senate votes to convict. None.

    And yet – this will suck all the air out of the Democratic primary, deprive most of the Democratic candidates of the exposure they need to get their message out, mobilize Trump’s supporters in the battleground states and pretty much guarantee Trump’s reelection next year.


    • Slowest Joe says:

      ” Many in the Republican “establishment” may hate DJT (and personally I can’t stand the guy)”

      OMG, you hate America!!!

      I am so disappointed. I thought you were one of the goo guys.
      Oh, I get it. You are virtue signaling. You are trying to prove you are beyond partisanship and think rationally.

      Good job.

  3. ChipNASA says:

    I can’t wait for Hunter Biden’s ass to get raped.
    Then he’s going to be on the receiving end of getting cornholed.


  4. SFC D says:

    Charles, how’re the popcorn stocks? We’re gonna need a metric shit-ton.

    • Roh-Dog says:

      Orville Redenbacher is a Conagra company along with Marie Callander and Banquet (damn good potpies imho), make SlimJims too!
      Full Disclosure: I am long CAG (and knifes).

  5. AW1Ed says:

    Pulled mine, as you posted up first. I do like my pic better, though.
    nan claw

    • thebesig says:

      Speech to text is awesome. :mrgreen: I might use your picture for next year’s Halloween Open Thread. :mrgreen:

      • Anonymous says:

        Haven’t heard such pretentious grasping hogwash since Palpatine before the galactic senate:

        • thebesig says:

          Presenting factual information isn’t pretentious grasping hogwash. Assuming that I presented such is. I have the professional version, the demonstrator is going slower for demonstration purposes, but it works as fast as you can speak:

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      What the hell happened to her botox treatments???

      Anyone besides me think Nancy P. may have bitten off more than she could chew?

      • rgr769 says:

        Maybe she got shots of gov’t issue diluted Botox. Or, the illegal who does her nails started doing Chinese generic Botox on the side.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        EX I think Pelosi knows exactly what she’s doing. She’s insuring her place as speaker regardless of the outcome here.

        It’s a far more impressive move than I thought she was capable of really, if the impeachment goes her way and the Dems win the White House her role in forward to the impeachment becomes a brilliant election year strategy and she remains speaker of the house…if impeachment goes horribly wrong (as I think Pelosi expects) she will use that to crush the progressives, strip them of their power and remain speaker of the house as long as the Dems retain the house….

        Most interesting.

        • Perry Gaskill says:

          VOV, that last part is based on the conditional if the Democrats retain control of the House.

          As the saying goes: If my uncle had wheels, he would be a wagon…

        • USMCMSgt (Ret) says:

          I don’t know if Pelosi understands the rules will change once this whole mess gets to the Senate.

          All the “witnesses” that weren’t allowed to testify will be called, and it will get real interesting then.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Or, she has decided she wants to be President, so Trump and Pence have to go.

          The moment she thinks she actually has a shot at removing Trump, the hearings on Pence will commence.

  6. Comm Center Rat says:

    “Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.” ~ Ronald Reagan

  7. 5th/77th FA says:

    Good! Bring it on! Maybe this will allow the American Citizens to take back their Government that has been hi-jacked by a bunch of power hungry, back stabbing, self centered, egotistical maniacs. I am constantly amazed at the pure stupidity of some voters that will keep voting for the very ones that will destroy this Republic thinking that it will preserve their positions. Maybe it’s because I have never been a member of the Free Sh^t Army and have worked all my life for what I have. The foxes have been guarding the hen house for way yonder too long.

    Pitchfork? Torch?

    • David says:

      Unfortunately as we have seen recently, even when the Republicans were in control it has been business as usual. How many years since Obamacare? And yet not ONE alternative proposed, just ‘repeal’ which they didn’t even seriously try to do. They are all the same.

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        You’re right David…I have preached that same thing for years. Democans and Republicrats.! The reason that Trump has been hamstrung all along. BOTH parties ARE the swamp and are terrified that Trump will expose the massive amount of graft and corruption that has gone on for DECADES.

        • USAF E-5 says:

          The old man, who was a die hard democrat, always said “1 term and out, if they can’t steal enough to line their pockets in 2 years, they’re too stupid to be in any longer.”

  8. ninja says:

    Can you just imagine how the Fake News Folks would react if the tables were turned and someone mocked Obama’s kids or Chelsea Clinton?

    Or the horrors!

    • 5th/77th FA says:

      Eggxactly. The hue and cry. The wailing and gnashing of teeth. I had always thought the the drug cartels were the only ones that went after the children of their enemies. Even in the heyday of Mafioso Wars, the children were left alone. I am really surprised and kinda disappointed that some of these people have not been charged with making terroristic threats or at the very least, charged with slander/defamation of character. Makes one wonder what would happen to a private citizen if we made statements like we hear from these people?

      ps…The Tide WILL Roll back in.

      • ninja says:


        Joy Behar on the View, CNN, MSNBC, Don Lemon, Rachel What’s Her Face, etc. etc. would be ALL OVER it if someone had mocked Obama’s kids or Chelsea.

        As far as I am concerned, those Three Stooges who appeared yesterday at the Impeachment Hearing (those Ivory Tower Professors) are LITERALLY Jerry’s Kids.

        Oops. That was Political Incorrect. So I will stick with identifying those three Ivory Tower Professors as DOUCHEBAGS.

        ps….HBTD and GO ARMY! BEAT NAVY!


    • Berliner says:

      Seems like scripted AND rehearsed questions and answers. For sure Rep Hank (Guam is going to tip over) Johnson had everything prepared and rehearsed when it was time for his 5 minutes of attempting to appear thoughtful.

    • Poetrooper says:

      I read at several other sites that she is one of those angry lesbian feminists who hates men. I guess that includes boys.

      Probably because they ignored her…

  9. ninja says:

    Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the Three Stooges that appeared yesterday.

    What a bunch of Douchebags.

    Which reminds me of this Classic Saturday Night Live Skit from 1980 (probably Political Incorrect now).


  10. HT '83-'87 says:

    I call 3 witnesses:
    1. The Mole (he’s not a whistleblower but a Deep State operative that reports every day to his handlers at the CIA/DNC) but I suspect he’ll plead the 5th as to not incriminate himself.
    2. Rep Adam Schiff so he can lie under oath about not knowing his identity when he’s met with him to discussed the ongoing “operation” against Pres. Trump several times and had his lawyers write the complaint.
    3. Pres. Zelensky so he can state clearly:
    1-Aide was delivered without conditions
    2-No investigation of Biden/Birisma was opened then or now
    3-Present evidence that previous Ukraine administration did act at the behest of DNC on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections, so Trump had reason to be skeptical that new government would honor its anti-corruption platform.

    Face facts Leftist/Socialist mob; Trump won fair and square you have no chance in 2020 which explains the level of desperation. Suck it up, buttercups.

    • rgr769 says:

      Don’t forget the Lawfare Group attorneys he hired and the two rats from the NSC he also hired to help him get Trump impeached. They have only been working on this scheme since about 1/2017.

      • OWB says:

        Would proffer that they began calling for impeachment early in November 2016. Some (including at least one of those “scholars” called to lecture us on Constitutional Law) did not wait until he was sworn in.

  11. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    We can likely expect some sort of attempt by Pelosi to “manage” the Senate side.
    “Impeachment is solely empowered of the House. Therefore:”

    “We deem him Impeached. Unless cleared by the Senate, by the required supermajority, he is removed and cannot function as President. Vice President Pence must serve as Acting President unless the Senate clears him.”

    “These articles require consideration -only- of the materials provided, in a guilty or not proven vote. No other materials may be used. No other actions are valid.”

    “This is purely -political-. Rules of trial and rules of evidence do not apply.”

    What they are going to do, is try very hard to slide a Bill of Attainder past everyone. Becasue otherwise, they lose -bigly-.

    I also suspect they may play shenanigans with the vote. Some Donks may have a side or surprise vote “the 2/3 majority -present-”.

    This is about ending any impact of Donks losing the presidential election, now or ever again. This is also about sabotaging the remaining Trump term, and maybe picking off some votes to their side. And when Trump is re-elected, you can expect this mess to continue. “The Senate didn’t actually clear him of -all- charges!” “The vote wasn’t held properly!” “Oh look, more sophistry! Do over again!”

    The Left has abandoned any scrap of “peaceful transition of power”. It is nakedly “Heads we win. Tails, IMPEACH!!!!” They believe that they no longer have to follow the rules. They believe there is nothing we can do about it.

    They may regret going down this path. Because if they won’t play by the rules, why would anyone else?

    • 26Limabeans says:

      We all know what the final NO vote is.

      • The Other Whitey says:

        I believe it flies at 2800 FPS. Personally, I don’t want to see such a referendum. What worries me is that the loudest voices on the left seem to think they would win. They wouldn’t, obviously, but there would be blood, and lots of it.

        Shooting someone because we voted for different candidates—no matter how deep the disagreement—runs counter to the bedrock principles of the American republic and society. The radical left seems increasingly hell-bent on making that unthinkable action a necessity.

        • Poetrooper says:

          TOW, history shows that the left has always viewed violence as a successful path to power, and they were right until Pinochet proved them wrong in Chile. Since then, they haven’t been quite so eager to take up arms, relying instead on gradual undermining of our institutions.

          But these clowns controlling the movement today are feeling overconfident and may well need another historical lesson, as sad as that may be. And I would remind you that more people have been killed because of political disagreement than any other reason.

  12. AW1Ed says:

    Pelosi is no fool. She knows her control of the House rests not on AOC and crew, it hinges on the 41 or so Democrats who hold seats in districts Trump won in 2016. Impeachment is apt to be unpopular among those voters. Democrats who support it may lose their re-election and party’s majority. She is willing to risk this not in the hope of actually impeaching Trump, it will certainly not pass in the Republican controlled Senate, but to damage his chances of reelection in 2020.

    • thebesig says:

      The Democrats are blinded by arrogance, desire for control, and emotion-based thinking. They hope that this would damage his chances, but they misread the public.

      The Republican base is solidly behind President Trump and will be energized more than normal during next year’s election. The percentage of independent voters desiring impeachment went down. This number should continue to trend downward when the Senate trial gets underway.

      The Senate won’t run itself like a clown show like what the House is doing. The Republicans would be able to actually force a show of evidence. This won’t turn out well for the Democrats.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      But you have to ask why, if it IS so important to Pelosi, why did she go running off to Madrid for the climate conference to assure those grifters that the Obama climate agreement, which was NOT presented to the Senate and was NOT therefore ratified, and is therefore NOT in effect, but will still be “obeyed” by the USA???

      Right in the midst of the hatchet job on Trump, she jumps the fence and goes to Madrid. Can you say “dumb as a bent nail”? “Dumb as a broken kite string?” Dumber than a box of rocks?

      • The Other Whitey says:

        Pelosi is cunning when she needs to be. The question is whether her cunning is exceeded by her hubris, and what effect her pathological need to hold onto power will have on both.

        The democrat party is coming apart with the growing schism between moderates, batshit extremists, and worshippers of the status quo. The question is whether they will try to take this country down with them as they go.

    • AO2(NAC) says:

      They want the talking point.

      “Yeah, well he was IMPEACHED!”

      and the political ads that go with it.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    When this is over, can I sue Pelosi for wasting my tax money on this trashy soap opera? I could use the cash.

  14. Mick says:

    And meanwhile, the essential governmental business of the American people will continue to be neglected…

  15. Slow Joe says:

    Is there any chance that all this impeachment thing is to get Bernie out of the race for the nomination?
    Well, Bernie and any other Senator.

    • David says:

      Think of it like this: when it fails,SanFraNan looks all Presidential. Should it succeed, Pence is next to be gotten rid of… Speaker of the House is after that. Oh wait! This is a win-win no matter what happens as far as she’s concerned.

      • OWB says:

        For that to work, Pence would have to go out concurrently with Trump. Nancy remains Speaker otherwise. Should Trump be out, Pence assumes the presidency and appoints his own Veep.

  16. Stacy0311 says:

    Waiting for the indictment of Slow Joe Bribem for obstruction of justice since he has said he will not comply with a subpoena from the Senate to testify in the impeachment circus.

  17. Devtun says:

    Cameras caught Nadler getting some nap time. The hearings were so inane, there were probably a bunch desperately trying not to doze off.

  18. Ex-PH2 says:

    Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official from office; it is the equivalent to an indictment in criminal law, and thus is only the statement of charges against the official. – wiki

    The um… democraps think that impeachment means removal from office. It does not. They have forgotten or never learned this lesson.

  19. ~Discovery Announcement ~
    The densest element in the known Universe has been found!
    image Pelosium:
    A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named Pelosium.

    Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.

    These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

    The symbol of Pelosium is PU.

    Pelosium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes.

    This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical Morass.

    When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      Pelosium is also the most toxic element known to science, poisoning anything and everything it comes into contact with.

      • Poetrooper says:

        It has been theorized that Pelosium’s rate of decay can be masked with small infusions of botox although, as the extant case demonstrates, that theory appears to be inherently fallacious.

  20. Civilwarrior says:

    This bullshit right here is EXACTLY why I am going to vote for this motherfucker in 2020; I can’t stand President Trump, honestly. But I’m going to vote for him. I may be drunk and naked at the time, but I’m going to vote for him, because fuck the Democrat party. Yeah.

  21. ninja says:

    Posted on another thread.

    It never gets old.

  22. OWB says:

    This is what happens when a bunch of folks refuse to accept reality, are so spoiled and accustomed to having their own way that they cannot conceive that others also have rights, and will never understand that just because you don’t like someone is not a capitol offense.

    Meanwhile, most of us served under at least one CinC for whom we had not voted. A quick calculation led me to discover that I had voted for roughly half the CinC’s under whom I served. Somehow, they, I and the country survived.

    Damn spoiled brats. Yes, they are in for some big surprises in the next year or so. And it well could become quite bloody if the sore losers start coming after the rest of us. If they could just learn to accept things a bit more gracefully, all their anxiety could be avoided. They have worked themselves into quite a frenzy. Scary, they are.

  23. MCPO USN says:

    Thinking way past the surface on this, I am convinced Nutty Nancy finally got enough Democrats in the house to get onto the impeachment merry-go-round. However, I have never been convinced that she is held in high regard, and some may be sand-bagging until it counts, and come out against it just to make her look bad and lose her “speakership”. There have to be some who see this as a no-win proposition and are concerned about re-election.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Her associates can’t admit she is nuts, thus they have been following a nut.

      It is contagious, and spreading.

      If you thought Clinton as President would be a catastrophe, ponder Pelosi in that role, post impeachment of Trump and Pence.

      Let’s see if she names both of them in the articles. That would be a tell, eh? And who else might then also be named?

      They have kinda tossed all prior impeachment rules already. I would like to believe she isn’t going to go that far. Really hoping I am misreading her ambition and scheming.

  24. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Pelosi is delusional. Just watched the latest vid of her antics.

    Bat-guano nuts. She makes AOC look sane.

    And the whole Donk party is going to follow that madness over the edge into the Abyss.

  25. lily says:

    I’m currently neutral on a Trump impeachment. I know that this is nothing more than a power grab by the Democrats, but is it a legitimate power grab? I don’t believe Alexander Vindman, Sondland and all the other witnesses are deep state or liberals out take down Trump because I’m not here to repeat Republican talking points that were given in defense of Trump during the impeachment hearings, unlike some of you political trolls who do that every chance you get.

    Trump chose to make poor decisions in regards to his dealing with Ukraine. He did this knowing the Democrats were looking for anything to impeach him on. He got caught and now is facing impeachment. His supporters should be upset with him because it’s them who mostly believe Trump could beat any Democrat candidate in 2020. So why would Trump have to do something that could get him impeached to get dirt on Joe Biden when you all believe Biden was so easy to beat without the dirt in 2020? Either way Trump brought this mess on himself and his supporters should stop pretending he did nothing wrong. It’s a power grab, but it’s based on legitimate facts of Trump’s wrong doing. With that said Trump could legally be impeached.

    For those of you who want to claim Democrats are just as big of crooks as Trump, you need to realize all you’re saying is Trump is a crook too. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Also, it’s just your opinion that the Democrats who haven’t been charged with a crime are criminals. How long have we heard that democrats are criminals? 30 years now or more? Yet who’s been put in jail the most? Republicans. We have Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Duncan Hunter all going to jail. Rudy Gulliani may be next on the list to go to jail. So why you tell me that democrats are just as big of criminals but aren’t being targeted, I think you’re a liar because you have no facts to back it up. You think all the Democrats in red states are being allowed to get away with crimes? If so who’s fault is that? Duncan Hunter was brought down with the help of the Snan Diego Tribune. Where’s the red state media to bring down the so called corrupt Democrats in their state? Your accusations are baseless.

    I’ve been hearing this nonsense forever. Listen to some episodes of Art Bell around 1995-1996 and you’ll hear the same stupid accusations. I remember hearing Bell say in one episode “We’re not going to be able to pay the interest on the debt because Clinton is spending too much on social programs.” That was in 1996 and you Libertarians/Conservatives keep parroting the same retarded thing to this day. When will you learn? You’re wrong about the issues. We normal people don’t want to live in your Mad Max world that you want America to become. We don’t want to see poor people begging at religious centers for food. We don’t want to see the minimum wage to go away. We don’t want to see people you can’t visually tel are disabled to just go die. You heartless, vile right wing types aren’t godly or moral, you’re selfish and immoral.

    After Bush spending 11 Trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan you libertarian/conservative types still dare to complain about fiscal policy? You still have the nerve to pretend to be conservative after putting Trump in office when he gave the rich a 1.5 Trillion tax cut and has been passing 2 Trillion dollar budgets every year of being in office? None is believing you libertarian/conservatives lies anymore, accept the few who are uneducated and lack critical thinking. This nation is changing, and the white right better get with the program or be left behind.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      If you skip the straw men, you might be more persuasive.

      • lily says:

        No I don’t claim to be persuasive, so it’s you who just made a straw man. Good job at doing what you accuse others. That’s called projection and it’s normally done by insecure people a lot. I don’t expect to persuade any of those here on the libertarian/conservative agenda because most of them are elderly and stuck in their ways and have through brainwashing from Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Fox News and other right wing media. The only ones I’m might persuade are those silently in the background looking at the comments.

        • Perry Gaskill says:

          Say what?

          Persuasion is a process to attain a desired result. It’s not the result itself.

          No I don’t claim to be persuasive, so it’s you who just made a straw man… I don’t expect to persuade any of those here on the libertarian/conservative agenda because most of them are elderly and stuck in their ways and have through brainwashing… The only ones I’m might persuade are those silently in the background looking at the comments.

          Which makes both your projection claim and strawman denial invalid.

          We normal people don’t want to live in your Mad Max world that you want America to become.

          Not once while following years of TAH comments have I ever heard anyone claim to favor a future Mad Max dystopia. Your own claim of such a thing amounts to an almost poster child of a strawman argument and you own it.

          This nation is changing, and the white right better get with the program or be left behind.

          Which amounts to further proof you’re an ageist and racist bigot who is unlikely to play well to the imaginary friends you only think you understand among “those silently in the background looking at the comments.”

    • Twist says:

      If you are going to accuse others of lying you might want to not lie in the exact same post. When Bush left office the national debt was $10.6 trillion (and that is the high end estimate) and since 2001 until present the U.S. has spent $6 Trillion in SWA not the $11 Trillion that you claim that only Bush spent in your lie. The budget for FY2019 is $4.07 Trillion. If you are talking about the deficit being $2 Trillion then that is yet another lie from you. The FY2019 deficit is $984 Billion not the $2 Trillion that you claim in your lie.

      You are fooling nobody. You are a partisan shill who uses strawmen and outright lies.

  26. SteeleyI says:

    Impeachment is inherently a political, not a criminal process.

    The democrats, to include Nancy Pelosi, are not stupid. Of course they know that their vote to impeach doesn’t remove the president from office, and that the trial will be held in the Republican controlled Senate. They can do the math just like all of us can, and know that unless there is some incredible secret evidence forthcoming they are not going to get Trump out of office.

    They are doing this because they think it will get them reelected, maintain their majority in the House, and deliver a lot of great soundbites for the upcoming presidential election. And they really, really don’t like the president so it just feels good.

    I think it is bad for the country and probably a mistake for the Democrats. They may get a few swing voters out of this, but I think most Americans on the fence about the president feel like I do: I don’t like the guy, but I support most of his policies. What he did with Ukraine was sketchy but not illegal, and definitely not worth dragging the country through on the world stage. We are basically writing the script for Russia’s interference in the 2020 Presidential campaign.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      It is an indictment, followed by a trial, presided by a judge, with a jury.

      That is not a political event. The Constitution specifies a legal process.

      A political process would be a Bill of Attainder. Those are expressly forbidden.

      • SteeleyI says:

        So, what are the specifications of the crimes for which one can be impeached? Where can I find the definition of ‘high crime and misdemeanor’?

      • SteeleyI says:

        Also, the Constitution specifically excludes impeachments from juries..

        3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

      • SteeleyI says:

        The Constitution also states that following the impeachment, the party removed from office is then subject to trial for the crimes…

        7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:



          Crimes and misdemeanors

          Prohibited are bills of Tinder.

          Net result: this is not a recall election. This is a trial, and sentence is limited.

          The founders wanted to prevent criminalization of political differences. Thus also the immunity of speech on the floor of Congress.

          The dems seek a purely political removal. They wish to criminalize opposition via politics. This is wrong. It is anti-constitutional to do so. It is system-destroying to do so.

          Blinded by lust for power, the folks who want Trump removes either cannot imagine being on the receiving end of their new way, or have no intention of ever allowing a peaceful change of power over to their opponents.

          Heads we win. Tails Impeach!

          And one big tell is the quest started in ernest the moment Trump defeated Clinton. The other is that what was finally identified as the “crime” is looking into the misdeeds of the prior bunch.

          This turd of a process cannot be polished. It is the abrogation of the prohibition of bills of attainder.

          The Republic and its survival is more important than the butthurt over 2016. One side has forgotten that. Ending our peaceful transition of power transition serves only the interests of hostile foreign powers.

          What is the logical expectation if roughly half the country becomes convinced that voting no longer matters, because even a win will be overturned, starting the moment the other side loses?

          “Acceptance” is not the likely outcome.

          Some folks have badly miscalculated. Much as some folks thought imposing the Fugitive Slave Act on Free states would settle that matter.

          The attempt to Bill of Attainder Mr. Trump is going to backfire spectacularly. The damage done will be in direct proportion to the vigor of the push to achieve it.

          On a humorous note, my spell check changes “attainder” to “tinder”. That may turn out to be humorously yet horrificly prophetic.

          No good will come of this.

    • JACK SHIT says:

      Steeleyl does not know me.

      • rgr769 says:

        The Steelyeye has a fabulous ability to read and regurgitate. The fact he does not know you does not compute in his brain housing group. You just don’t understand his mad skillz in constitutional law.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I am not a lawyer either.

          Am I wrong? The Constitution seems to make it abundantly clear that Impeachment is a trial of the accused, for crimes, judge and juried, but sentence-limited. Bills of Attainder are prohibited. Speech of Congress from the floor is immunized.

          Net result, prevent criminalization of opposition. Removal for real major offences, not trivial political reasons.

          The Founders were subject to criminalization of opposition. The antidote in the Constitution seems obvious and logical.

          Trashing that ban over one election seems unwise.

          • SteeleyI says:

            You are wrong.

            It is a trial, but it is inherently a political process.

            The Constitution is deliberately vague on what constitutes a Crime or Misdemeanor and how the trial is to be conducted, but it is very specific on who has the power of impeachment (the lower house, thought to have a closer tie to the people), who tries to determine guilt (the higher house, thought at the time to be more educated), and who presides (the Chief Justice ONLY in the case of the president or Vice President acting as president. In all other cases the Presiding officer is selected by the Senate).

            The Senators (they aren’t a jury) vote based on their judgement of the accused’s fit for office, not against specifications of a charge or a crime.

            Most importantly, impeachment and removal does not count for double jeopardy: If the accused is actually removed from office, they can then be tried for the crimes that got them impeached in the first place.

            Bills of attainder are a completely different thing- a bill of attainder is the act of a legislature finding someone guilty without a crime.

            • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

              Babble, babble, babble, babble, anything that you think makes you the center of everyone’s attention!

              • SteeleyI says:

                So, you literally took the time out of everyone’s day to write the word babble four times (industry standard is three, by the way), and I am the center of attention?

                Aside from that, did you have a point?

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              I asked the guy with the law degree, not you.

              A Bill of Attainder is the legislature declaring someone guilty of a crime.

              Real crime or not, they cant declare someone guilty.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Thanks, by the way, for making my point so directly. You said “finding someone guilty without a crime”. You appear OK with them doing so if you or they think the target guilty. This is -exactly- why Bills off Attainder were explicitly banned, and why you are not going to get to water that ban down so they can be used as a political cudgel.


              • OWB says:

                Seems like there has been a lot of declaring him guilty going on in the hearings so far. We still don’t know what crime he is guilty of beyond them not liking him, but that’s all we have heard so far. Opinions that he is guilty and therefore should be impeached.

                What is the crime for which he would be prosecuted? My opinion is simply that nobody should be impeached unless there is a clear violation of some law, or when it is more of an administrative thing, a long standing rule or regulation governing the behavior of the government official being impeached.

              • SteeleyI says:

                I meant to say ‘without a trial’.

                That’s the key difference between that an an impeachment. Impeachments have a trial (and are completely legal)

                Read the bottom of my original post. I pretty clearly said that I don’t think this is a good idea for the Dems, and it is bad for the country.

                None of that changes the fact that they can do this, and it is inherently political. Ask yourself this: If it was a criminal proceeding, why doesn’t it just go to the Supreme Court?

        • SteeleyI says:

          At least I can read, a skill some seem to still be working on here.

          Do you have an actual point, or are you still googling ‘constitution’ and ‘impeachment’?

      • SteeleyI says:

        Jack, good to hear from you again.

        Your keen intellect and rapier wit were just what this thread was missing. Thanks for the input, and keep up the good work.

  27. rgr769 says:

    Turley testified about the legal reality of what is going on with this bogus impeachment BS. And even though he is a liberal and a D-rat, he is now receiving death threats.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      This whole mess only makes sense if someone has decided that the other folks will never get to hold the keys to the machine.

      One side believes that can simply order folks to change, to accept their fate obediently. Be silent.

      Evidence strongly suggests otherwise. But they may be assuming that the conversion of California to a one-party state will be accepted everywhere else. They expect to wield sufficient force to deal with a few hotheads.

      This is going to go wrong, and very badly. They are so blinded by power-lust that they can no longer see logical outcomes of their actions. The ones that do see have panicked at the thought of the opposition undoing all the ground-work.

      So here we go again. The Dems are going to start another one. They learned nothing from the last except hate.

      • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

        I say let them shoot them selves in the ass and foot once more, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time until they shoot their selves in the head!

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          I am hoping we can avoid another Democrat-induced bloodbath. The last one killed or maimed one tenth of the adult male population.

          • 5th/77th FA says:

            Amen to that 11B. We are still paying Honors to the men on both sides that fell in that politician created conflict. Many of those men that called for informal truces between the lines to swap tobacco for coffee discussed having the politicians that started it meet one another and fight it out so the troops could go home. That is exactly what the congress critters fear the most. The people rising up, together, against them.

            Pitchfork? Torch?