well yeah, but what isn't, really?So they got the time off and got paid?
that last shutdown was stupid gamesmanship. all the laid off received back pay.. I guess they went from non-essential to Hell-no-we-don't-need-them! still got paid. Originally Posted by Chung Tran
Yeah in SPEEDS thread I asked him to weight in on this since it is his beloved house and all.So what is your question? A question ends with a question mark. I see no question mark in your post.
Maybe he can give his convoluted explanation to us here...I won't hold my breath. Originally Posted by bb1961
Or "who's going to get blamed."That would help those not Senators....which would be a great thing for Dems who want to beat Trump.....that is if Warren and Sanders get tied up. That wing of the party is killing their chances of beating Trump.
Something tells me the USMCA bill will be passed around the same time.
It appears Nervous Nancy did not think this through.
On Tucker last night he proposed that Mitch could keep the impeachment trial going for months and keep the Democratic Senators from campaigning. Originally Posted by gnadfly
So they got the time off and got paid?
Being a government bureaucrat seems lucrative. Originally Posted by friendly fred
So what is your question? A question ends with a question mark. I see no question mark in your post.What is the topic of this thread SPEED...don't play stupid.
I did respond to your post in the other thread. No response from you. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
What is the topic of this thread SPEED...don't play stupid.A person. the whistle blower, comes forward and lodges a viable complaint. Whether in the public or private sector, such a complaint should be investigated. A subgroup of House members, including both Republicans and Democrats, investigate the matter and then bring it forward,if needed, to the entire House membership. I see nothing wrong so far.
Are you proud of your beloved house and the priorities of the dims pushing this disastrous circus since no other business is getting done.
Please give us your take on this... Originally Posted by bb1961
Four (4) days for congress to do its real job.I'm guessing some bullshit agreement will be worked out in time to fund the government through the first of the new year. I can't imagine either side wants a shutdown over the holidays.
Do we start a betting pool on this, or is everyone agreed that it won't be done this week? Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter
A person. the whistle blower, comes forward and lodges a viable complaint. Whether in the public or private sector, such a complaint should be investigated. A subgroup of House members, including both Republicans and Democrats, investigate the matter and then bring it forward,if needed, to the entire House membership. I see nothing wrong so far.
The impeachment process does not require a violation of the law:
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
If the POTUS used his position and financial power of the U.S. to ask a foreign country to look into possible wrong-doings by someone, a someone who happens to be the leading opposition candidate in an upcoming election, and threatens to withhold monies allocated to that country by Congress, then I consider that to be inappropriate behavior by the POTUS.
The House does NOT determine guilt. The passage of impeachment articles by the House essentially represents an indictment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a vague term and open to interpretation. If Trump is determined to have done what I said in the preceding paragraph, does that constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I'll leave that decision to others.
Obviously the information presented by those appearing before the House committee is viewed very differently by those on this forum, and around the country, based on political leanings.
So this is my take. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
A person. the whistle blower, comes forward and lodges a viable complaint. Whether in the public or private sector, such a complaint should be investigated. A subgroup of House members, including both Republicans and Democrats, investigate the matter and then bring it forward,if needed, to the entire House membership. I see nothing wrong so far.
The impeachment process does not require a violation of the law:
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
If the POTUS used his position and financial power of the U.S. to ask a foreign country to look into possible wrong-doings by someone, a someone who happens to be the leading opposition candidate in an upcoming election, and threatens to withhold monies allocated to that country by Congress, then I consider that to be inappropriate behavior by the POTUS.
The House does NOT determine guilt. The passage of impeachment articles by the House essentially represents an indictment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is a vague term and open to interpretation. If Trump is determined to have done what I said in the preceding paragraph, does that constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors"? I'll leave that decision to others.
Obviously the information presented by those appearing before the House committee is viewed very differently by those on this forum, and around the country, based on political leanings.
So this is my take. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
SR - as i have been writing - You are correct - Impeachment by the house does not require a "Crime" per legal statute - Impeachment is a political act - and the DPST's are desperately searching for their "crime' for their impeachment planned since the election of Nov 2016.OEB, this has absolutely nothing about Trump firing Marie Yovanovitch. As even she stated, he has the right to do so. To be honest, I'm not sure why she was being questioned.
so far they got nothing but "How did that make you feel?".
The DPST's conveniently overlook that it is the privilege of the POTUS to hire and fire Ambassdaors at his pleasure. Period.
as did Obama at the beginning of his Presidency - he fired all Republican Ambassadors he could who were not protected in civil service positions. There were few left.
DPST's in their overweening eargerlness to find an impeachment "crime' ignore this fact.
I think Trump and the Republicans in the house should get together and call for a vote on Impeachment - and all Republicans vote for it - with the Marxist loons Pelosi won't be able to control.
Why - to end the Schiff/Nadler show of slanted Bs coming down daily. Put the matter into the Senate and have Senate rules - not Pelosi DPST rules - of evidence and witnesses.
Let's see what is on the hand-held McCarthyite paper in their sweaty hands.
I think Trump needs to call their bluff - it will show the shifting sands foundation of their accusations, and give Trump the One-up to the American people to ask that the DPST's be brought out openly to the American people
It will terrify the DPST's in house and Senate who see their smoke and mirrors drawn-out
"Impeach charade" called out to the light of day - Even the LSM will be in fear of truly open procedures.
DPST's on this site won't like the idea one bit - it exposes their lies.
So - Axis of Socialism folks - how would you really like to see a Senate impeachment trial???
Let's hear it from the roaches - scurry toward or away from the light???!!! Originally Posted by oeb11
SR - s i have been writing - You are correct - Impeachment by the house does not require a "Crime" per legal statute - Impeachment is a political act - and the DPST's are desperately searching for their "crime' for their impeachment planned since the election of Nov 2016.
so far they got nothing but "How did that make you feel?".
I think Trump and the Republicans in the house should get together and call for a vote on Impeachment - and all Republicans vote for it - with the Marxist loons Pelosi won't be able to control.
Why - to end the Schiff/Nadler show of slanted Bs coming down daily. Put the matter into the Senate and have Senate rules - not Pelosi DPST rules - of evidence and witnesses.
Let's see what is on the hand-held McCarthyite paper in their sweaty hands.
I think Trump needs to call their bluff - it will show the shifting sands foundation of their accusations, and give Trump the One-up to the American people to ask that the DPST's be brought out openly to the American people
It will terrify the DPST's in house and Senate who see their smoke and mirrors drawn-out
"Impeach charade" called out to the light of day - Even the LSM will be in fear of truly open procedures.
DPST's on this site won't like the idea one bit - it exposes their lies.
So - Axis of Socialism folks - how would you really like to see a Senate impeachment trial???
Let's hear it from the roaches - scurry toward or away from the light???!!! Originally Posted by oeb11
SR - as i have been writing - You are correct - Impeachment by the house does not require a "Crime" per legal statute - Impeachment is a political act - and the DPST's are desperately searching for their "crime' for their impeachment planned since the election of Nov 2016.Somebody's Russian A.I. is showing.
so far they got nothing but "How did that make you feel?".
The DPST's conveniently overlook that it is the privilege of the POTUS to hire and fire Ambassdaors at his pleasure. Period.
as did Obama at the beginning of his Presidency - he fired all Republican Ambassadors he could who were not protected in civil service positions. There were few left.
DPST's in their overweening eargerlness to find an impeachment "crime' ignore this fact.
I think Trump and the Republicans in the house should get together and call for a vote on Impeachment - and all Republicans vote for it - with the Marxist loons Pelosi won't be able to control.
Why - to end the Schiff/Nadler show of slanted Bs coming down daily. Put the matter into the Senate and have Senate rules - not Pelosi DPST rules - of evidence and witnesses.
Let's see what is on the hand-held McCarthyite paper in their sweaty hands.
I think Trump needs to call their bluff - it will show the shifting sands foundation of their accusations, and give Trump the One-up to the American people to ask that the DPST's be brought out openly to the American people
It will terrify the DPST's in house and Senate who see their smoke and mirrors drawn-out
"Impeach charade" called out to the light of day - Even the LSM will be in fear of truly open procedures.
DPST's on this site won't like the idea one bit - it exposes their lies.
So - Axis of Socialism folks - how would you really like to see a Senate impeachment trial???
Let's hear it from the roaches - scurry toward or away from the light???!!! Originally Posted by oeb11
OEB, this has absolutely nothing about Trump firing Marie Yovanovitch. As even she stated, he has the right to do so. To be honest, I'm not sure why she was being questioned.When Jimmy the Peanut withheld funds allocated by Congress to Nicaragua no dim-retards whined and cried about it -- let alone set about impeaching him.
As I said in my previous post:
"If the POTUS used his position and financial power of the U.S. to ask a foreign country to look into possible wrong-doings by someone, a someone who happens to be the leading opposition candidate in an upcoming election, and threatens to withhold monies allocated to that country by Congress, then I consider that to be inappropriate behavior by the POTUS."
So I have 2 questions for you:
1. Should the allegations by the whistle blower been investigated or should they have been ignored?
2. Do you consider it appropriate behavior for a POTUS to withhold Congress allocated funds from a foreign country in order to force that country to investigate a political opponent?
I am not saying Trump did #2 but rather if it was done, is it appropriate or inappropriate in your opinion? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX
"Under 2 U.S.C. Section 684 or 2 U.S.C. Section 683, the Impoundment Control Act, the President has the power to propose deferring funds on a temporary basis or rescinding them altogether ... "
(The Ohio Star)