Nancy Pelosi Will Hold Off Sending The Articles of Impeachment To The Senate

It's regrettable that you failed to educate yourself to a level at which you could comprehend all those "big" words I publish. You might learn something of value. Never misinterpret thoughtful, reasoned hesitancy to engage a fool in a discussion they are not qualified to join .... as having anything to do with "fear"!

That would be you: the fool. You really need to stay on the porch. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Big words don't mean anything when you know the value of nothing. I take your "thoughtful, reasoned hesitancy to engage" as a sign you have no place of footing.

I see now not fear, but caution.

Pelosi kinda screwed the pooch here. If/When the trial starts, the Senators are all sworn in as jurors. They have to stay in town six days a week and are not allowed to speak out in public during the trial. IF this happens, then all of the candidates who are Senators are taken off the campaign trail for as long as the trial is going on. So, Pelosi can't and wont' (in my opinion) pass them over until after the DNC convention in July, and them only maybe...depending on who the nominee is. Which is likely to be Bloomberg since he will be able to fund the DNC, which is broke right now and can't raise enough money to surpass its expenses. It will be a Hillary Clinton flashback in that sense.

Pelosi kinda screwed the pooch here. If/When the trial starts, the Senators are all sworn in as jurors. They have to stay in town six days a week and are not allowed to speak out in public during the trial. IF this happens, then all of the candidates who are Senators are taken off the campaign trail for as long as the trial is going on. So, Pelosi can't and wont' (in my opinion) pass them over until after the DNC convention in July, and them only maybe...depending on who the nominee is. Which is likely to be Bloomberg since he will be able to fund the DNC, which is broke right now and can't raise enough money to surpass its expenses. It will be a Hillary Clinton flashback in that sense. Originally Posted by bigwill832

e95000, u saying... "say what?"


I think Pussolini over played her hand.

Did you boys actually think this would be resolveds before Christmas? Yous are sure acting like you do. Just asking for someone who gives a fucks.

Dems think they are exposing Presisent Trump, when they're actually really exposing their own selves, I agree, If Trump did violate highs crimes or whatever then he deserves to be impeached, Dems don't have a tight case against Trump, I feel sorry for democratic voters, their representitives arent serving the voters, or as the saying goes, "what have you done for me lately" if the dems had an airtight case, they would most certainly push forward to have Trump removed, "this too will pass", drain the swamp.

I still haven't heard the CRIMES , ????

And Still no answer
We are in the weeds , 3 questions the LSM has forgot about ?
1) IF there was a Quid pro quo was that illegal ?
2) Why are all the "witnesses " (3 hand opinions) disgruntled employees or fired ?
3) Hunters dealings ?
That's the whole base of the investigation
Funny how simple question are to difficult for the Distortion of fact fairy tales
And abuse of power really talk about distortion of facts ,,,,,

1 No but it is impeachable concerning the President.

It is illegal if any other government official does it....for an example look where the former Governor of Illinois resides because he was peddling a Quid pro quo for Obama's former Senate seat.

2 Because Trump will not let the other witnesses testify.

3 Hunter , there has been nothing illegal with Ukraine and Hunter. Rudy is supposed to be finding some shit but so far...nothing but teasers from Rudy.

Apologist for biden
Accusor of Trump who did not do what Biden admitted he did.

DPST's live in a fantasy land devoid of Facts due to their TDS and hatred of anything not of their DPST narrative.

Merry Christmas, ftw!