T1B

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:03 pm**

Nancy continues to do her best to put Trump back in office for a 2nd term.

First she said this:

I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.

Well her impeachment was certainly partisan. In fact 0 Republicans voted for it, but multiple Dems voted against it and one running for President voted present.

Now she is sitting on the Impeachment and wants to have a say in the trial that the Senate puts on:

We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side...And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.

However, that isn't how the Constitution works Nancy.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Further she wants the Senate to call more witnesses and for additional document subpoenas. That isn't the Senate's job Nancy. If you wanted additional evidence you shouldn't have rushed the impeachment in the House. You should have subpoenaed this evidence and called more witnesses. The Senate only needs to try the articles that you send over. When Clinton was tried in the Senate no new witnesses were allowed, no new evidence was allowed and only taped testimony from key witnesses was allowed. If that was good for Clinton, why is that not good for Trump? This sounds similar to Dems changing the rules for approval of judges and then bitching when others use the same rules.

But hey Nancy, by all means, don't send the Impeachment over. It just shows your desperation.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:06 pm**

Suck more orange dick you pathetically fat tub of stupid goo.
Nothing compels her to send it to Moscow Mitch and his band of merry nazis.
Learn to read.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:09 pm**

Oh and Merrick Garland also thinks you are a lying, yellow, partisan hack.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:09 pm**

She's a leftist.
Beto O'Rourke is a leftist.
Corey Booker is a leftist.
Pete bootyfudge is a leftist.
Kamala Harris is a leftist.
Schiff and Nadler are leftists.
Pocahontas is a leftist.
Bernie Sanders is a leftist.
The vast majority of the Democrat socialist party is leftist.

Where am I going with this?

Leftists are government control socialists.
By definition, that's authoritarian and the enemy of liberty and our Bill of rights.

This isn't rocket science.

Leftists despise liberty.

As soon as most of the country fully understands this?
We can put a stop to these socialists once and for all.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:11 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:09 pm Oh and Merrick Garland also thinks you are a lying, yellow, partisan hack.

Barack the Chicago community street pimp LIED to the American people about Merrick Garland.
Barry called him a moderate.

Buwahahaha

After some research on Garland's legal opinions, it quickly became clear that he was a leftist scum.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:13 pm**

Everybody a leftist even the people at Christianity Today.
Run the process.
Fuck the Constitution.

Sin,
88ovens

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:18 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:13 pm Everybody a leftist even the people at Christianity Today.
Run the process.
Fuck the Constitution.

Sin,
88ovens

Yes. Christianity today has been taken over by leftists.
These are fake L. Ron hubbard
In name only, jackoffs.

Franklin Graham publicly stated that his father would condemn the leftists who took control of the once great magazine.

And that's 100% correct, because I KNEW Dr. Billy Graham, and he would have zero to do with the sham they've become.

You'd know that if you had an IQ above retard levels.

I'm beginning to think that you are a sheep like minion.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:50 pm**

LS wrote:Now she is sitting on the Impeachment

Understandable.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:56 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:06 pm Suck more orange dick you pathetically fat tub of stupid goo.
Nothing compels her to send it to Moscow Mitch and his band of merry nazis.
Learn to read.

I didn't think that anyone could pass the bar, without basic literacy. Not even a bottom feeder public defender.

No one has claimed she is compelled to send it. She is free to sit on it till hell freezes.

But once she sends it over, her job is done. Full stop.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:57 pm**

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:50 pm
LS wrote:Now she is sitting on the Impeachment
Understandable.

Let her sit.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:59 pm**

smackaholic wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:56 pm
Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:06 pm Suck more orange dick you pathetically fat tub of stupid goo.
Nothing compels her to send it to Moscow Mitch and his band of merry nazis.
Learn to read.
I didn't think that anyone could pass the bar, without basic literacy. Not even a bottom feeder public defender.

No one has claimed she is compelled to send it. She is free to sit on it till hell freezes.

But once she sends it over, her job is done. Full stop.

Fat&Greedy’s premise is she hates the USC. It is silent on her duty to send it up. But by all means, call me the stupid one.

What she should do is send up one article.

Posted: **Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:47 pm**

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:50 pm
LS wrote:Now she is sitting on the Impeachment
Understandable.

Trust me. When this is over, she'll be sitting on president trump's face while he squeezes the shit out of her voluptuous titties, and hits her G spot with his 13 inch tongue that Gene Simmons himself would envy

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 12:03 am**

There are only two possibilities here. President Trump is either impeached or he is not impeached. If he is not impeached, then we have just witnessed yet another meaningless "orange man bad" tantrum from House Democrats. There might even be some who give a fuck.

If he is impeached, then the Senate should begin the trial. There is no requirement for the House to "transmit the articles" nor is there any requirement for the participation of House managers in the trial. However, it should be a fair process. In the interest of fairness and, in keeping with legal custom, hearsay should not be admissible as evidence. Naturally, since the entire impeachment case is based on hearsay, it will be a rather short trial. I think they could probably start in the morning and wrap up in time for a late lunch.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 1:27 am**

The case is based on what came out of your Dear Leader’s Orange Conhole you retard pedo.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:02 am**

Never mind that.

Don and his minions will tell you what reality is.

mvscal wrote:In the interest of fairness and, in keeping with legal custom...

Ding Dong actually typed this?

LMAO!

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:17 pm**

For you low IQ posters, yes she can sit on the articles as long as she wants. The longer she does, the bigger the farce becomes. But sitting on the articles just proves her previous claims to be a lie. She used words like expeditiously, quickly, now around the process.

Where the unconstitutional part comes in is where she wants a say in how the Senate will try the Articles. She gets zero say in that. Period, full stop.

Republicans should just wait her out. They should agree to exactly zero with her, don't even meet or discuss said topic. She will then either sit on the articles until a new Congress is seated or she will send them over without getting a say. Either makes her look like the desperate TDS honk she is.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:32 pm**

LS wrote:Where the unconstitutional part comes in is where she wants a say in how the Senate will try the Articles. She gets zero say in that. Period, full stop.

Yes, but why do you stand in support of Senate leaders coming out and saying that they have no intention of regarding evidence that is presented?
And why do you stand in support of important witnesses being blocked from testifying?

It is supposed to be a trial.

Wtf is wrong with you?

I thought you were too smart to be a Trump nut licker.
Obviously not.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:39 pm**

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:32 pm
LS wrote:Where the unconstitutional part comes in is where she wants a say in how the Senate will try the Articles. She gets zero say in that. Period, full stop.
Yes, but why do you stand in support of Senate leaders coming out and saying that they have no intention of regarding evidence that is presented?
And why do you stand in support of important witnesses being blocked from testifying?

You got a link to back up that straw man?

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:43 pm**

Those are all facts, you god forsaken moron.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:50 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:43 pm Those are all facts, you god forsaken moron.

Learn to read, idiot. He is making claims that I support these positions. I asked him to link me up to where I said I support these positions.

Go back to posting your TDS if you can't keep up on a basic level.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:28 pm**

Left Seater wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 2:17 pm For you low IQ posters, yes she can sit on the articles as long as she wants. The longer she does, the bigger the farce becomes. But sitting on the articles just proves her previous claims to be a lie. She used words like expeditiously, quickly, now around the process.

Where the unconstitutional part comes in is where she wants a say in how the Senate will try the Articles. She gets zero say in that. Period, full stop.

Republicans should just wait her out. They should agree to exactly zero with her, don't even meet or discuss said topic. She will then either sit on the articles until a new Congress is seated or she will send them over without getting a say. Either makes her look like the desperate TDS honk she is.

Asking them to do their job and follow the oath they will have to take is not unconstitutional you fat nazi.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:41 pm**

The GOP doesn't care much for oaths. They're just words anyway.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:13 pm**

BrokenFatty never said that. Why the straw man? Just because he never once condemned Mitch the Turtle doesn’t mean he isn’t very much against his boldface flaunting of his upcoming oath. It’s very important to him. He thinks about it every day and it bothers him. He just doesn’t ever bring it up here.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:17 pm**

And Nancy hates the Constitution, its just words, eh?

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:43 pm**

What the Fat are you babbling about now you fucking POS nazi?

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:21 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 10:59 pm But by all means, call me the stupid one.

Easy enough to do, somebody does it every day you stupid fuck.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:30 pm**

Left Seater wrote: ↑Thu Dec 26, 2019 8:03 pm Nancy continues to do her best to put Trump back in office for a 2nd term.

First she said this:

I haven’t said this to any press person before. But since you asked, and I’ve been thinking about this, impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.
Well her impeachment was certainly partisan. In fact 0 Republicans voted for it, but multiple Dems voted against it and one running for President voted present.

Now she is sitting on the Impeachment and wants to have a say in the trial that the Senate puts on:

We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side...And when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.
However, that isn't how the Constitution works Nancy.

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

Further she wants the Senate to call more witnesses and for additional document subpoenas. That isn't the Senate's job Nancy. If you wanted additional evidence you shouldn't have rushed the impeachment in the House. You should have subpoenaed this evidence and called more witnesses. The Senate only needs to try the articles that you send over. When Clinton was tried in the Senate no new witnesses were allowed, no new evidence was allowed and only taped testimony from key witnesses was allowed. If that was good for Clinton, why is that not good for Trump? This sounds similar to Dems changing the rules for approval of judges and then bitching when others use the same rules.

But hey Nancy, by all means, don't send the Impeachment over. It just shows your desperation.

This is disturbing.

Pelosi is owned by someone. Who owns Nancy? What is the point of this farce?

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:36 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 3:41 pm The GOP doesn't care much for oaths. They're just words anyway.

Neither do Democrats. We're being played. Something else is happening in the background, but we're being distracted.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:51 pm**

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:36 pm Neither do Democrats. We're being played. Something else is happening in the background, but we're being distracted.

Go shit in someone else's sandbox.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 7:24 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:51 pm
Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 6:36 pm Neither do Democrats. We're being played. Something else is happening in the background, but we're being distracted.
Go shit in someone else's sandbox.

Thought about it.

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:03 pm**

Blah blah blah
Run the process
Everyone we don’t like is a leftist
Kill all Jews

Sin,
88LovesShedick

Posted: **Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:45 pm**

LS wrote:Learn to read, idiot. He is making claims that I support these positions.

Senate leaders should welcome all relevant evidence and witnesses -- and they should impartially consider all evidence that is presented.

This is your view?

Isn't that what Nancy wants?

Isn't that what any right thinking American wants?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:04 am**

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:45 pm
LS wrote:Learn to read, idiot. He is making claims that I support these positions.
Senate leaders should welcome all relevant evidence and witnesses -- and they should impartially consider all evidence that is presented.

This is your view?

Isn't that what Nancy wants?

Isn't that what any right thinking American wants?

So you hate the Constitution as well it seems. What I want, what you want, what Nancy wants is irrelevant. The Constitution says the Senate has the SOLE say in this.

But there is nothing to even discuss until Nancy transfers the Articles.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:50 am**

poptart wrote:Senate leaders should welcome all relevant evidence and witnesses -- and they should impartially consider all evidence that is presented.

This is your view?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:01 am**

And in other news, Joe Biden has said he would ignore a subpoena in a senate trial.

https://newsradiowrva.radio.com/blogs/j ... te-supeona

This is obstruction of Congress according to the House. Or if you want to argue that it isn’t then you are arguing that Trump did not obstruct Congress.

Is Joe on Trump’s payroll?

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:06 am**

Left Seater wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:01 am And in other news, Joe Biden has said he would ignore a subpoena in a senate trial.

https://newsradiowrva.radio.com/blogs/j ... te-supeona

This is obstruction of Congress according to the House. Or if you want to argue that it isn’t then you are arguing that Trump did not obstruct Congress.

Is Joe on Trump’s payroll?

Massive corruption within the press and the previous administration.
No doubt whatsoever.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:59 am**

88 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:39 am What evidence has been presented? Would an impartial House impeach a President without evidence? What Should happen when a partisan House shits the bed on its responsibility to be impartial?

STFU with this “body? what body? I don’t see a body on the floor” BS you orange dong slobbering wack job.
I posted the laws and the analysis, your Dear Leader admitted to the crimes on TV and in the memo so get bent you nazi racist fuck.
And then take your lying suppositions and suppository them, you know, the hole where your wife pegs you.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:45 am**

MS wrote:STFU with this “body? what body? I don’t see a body on the floor” BS you orange dong slobbering wack job.

.088 post rambling lunacy.

Lefty *fails* to answer a simple question, and instead diverts to Joe Biden.

Schmuck accuses the House of not being impartial, even though it was Don who blocked multiple witnesses from testifying.

LOL

They have nothing, and they know it.

Total embarrassment.

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 10:11 am**

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 8:45 am
MS wrote:STFU with this “body? what body? I don’t see a body on the floor” BS you orange dong slobbering wack job.
.088 post rambling lunacy.

Lefty *fails* to answer a simple question, and instead diverts to Joe Biden.

Schmuck accuses the House of not being impartial, even though it was Don who blocked multiple witnesses from testifying.

LOL

They have nothing, and they know it.

Total embarrassment.

Joe Biden is being protected by the house majority. He's a part of criminal corruption, as well as the previous administration of which he was VP.

The dem majority is guilty of obstruction
Stay tuned

Posted: **Sat Dec 28, 2019 1:28 pm**

Get over yourself Softball. You claim to be an impartial observer when you are just a hack. You throw up straw mans to then rail against.

Your “simple question” is irrelevant. What anyone but Senators “want” means jack shit. The Constitution gives 100 men and women the SOLE power and responsibility of a trial. Period. Full stop.

Further pointing out what Biden has said isn’t deflection. He is saying he will do exactly what the President was just impeached for doing. You can’t have it both ways. You should be all over Joe, but you are giving him a pass. Why?

T1B

Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution

Re: Nancy Pelosi hates the Constitution