What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Nancy Pelosi thread (2 Viewers)

parrot said:
Her job is not done.  The House is still basically the prosecution in this case and Pelosi will appoint the "Impeachment Managers" i.e the prosecutors, some of whom at least are expected to be House members.  It's perfectly within her purview to try and ensure that she is sending her people into as equitable a situation as possible.  
Click to expand...
Her job is to appoint Impeachment Managers.  That's it.  It's not her job or her right to demand anything else.

 
jon_mx said:
It is a fair trial.  The arguement that this is unfair is laughable.  Nancy closed her case with insufficient evidence.  She had the opportunity and as long as she wanted to present a full and complete case to convict Trump.  She failed and it is beyond stupid to expect the other side to do a better job than you did.  
Click to expand...
He's not convicted in the House, he's convicted, or not, in the Senate.  That's where the TRIAL takes place.  

 
parrot said:
He's not convicted in the House, he's convicted, or not, in the Senate.  That's where the TRIAL takes place.  
Click to expand...
That is incorrect.  In this case the prosecution has already present the case to the full jury....the public and the senate. No need to rehash.  

 
BladeRunner said:
The Constitution. She doesn't get rights not outlined in the Impeachment process.
Click to expand...
Impeachment roles are mostly undefined in the Constitution.  Basically the House impeaches, the Senate Tries, and when the President is the defendant the Chief Justice presides. Other than that it's pretty wide open.  

 
jon_mx said:
That is incorrect.  In this case the prosecution has already present the case to the full jury....the public and the senate. No need to rehash.  
Click to expand...
No it's not incorrect.  The TRIAL takes place in the Senate. It's in the Constitution and everything.  

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. "

 
jon_mx said:
That is incorrect.  In this case the prosecution has already present the case to the full jury....the public and the senate. No need to rehash.  
Click to expand...
That is not what has happened Jon. The house presented a case and basically returned indictments (the two articles of impeachment).  They have not presented a case at trial or to a Jury...that is what is supposed to happen in the senate

 
BladeRunner said:
The Constitution. She doesn't get rights not outlined in the Impeachment process.
Click to expand...
According to Harvard Constitutional Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe, there is no requirement in the Constitution that requires the Speaker of the House to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Technically Pelosi can sit on them indefinitely, but she can't be forced to present them to the Senate, so she does have some leverage here (whether it would be wise to use it is another matter).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
According to Harvard Constitutional Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe, there is no requirement in the Constitution that requires the Speaker of the House to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Technically Pelosi can sit on them indefinitely, but she can't be forced to present them to the Senate, so she does leverage here (whether it would be wise to do so is another matter).
Click to expand...
And according to Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar Mark Levin it's clearly unconstitutional.  :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pelosi: "I'm warning you. I won't turn over the articles of impeachment." :lol:  Are you kidding? That's what you are going with.

McConnell: 'Ok, see ya later'

Pelosi: 'Well that didn't work'.

 
squistion said:
According to Harvard Constitutional Law Professor, Lawrence Tribe, there is no requirement in the Constitution that requires the Speaker of the House to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Technically Pelosi can sit on them indefinitely, but she can't be forced to present them to the Senate, so she does have some leverage here (whether it would be wise to use it is another matter).
Click to expand...
#losing

 
lod001 said:
Pelosi: "I'm warning you. I won't turn over the articles of impeachment." :lol:  Are you kidding? That's what you are going with.

McConnell: 'Ok, see ya later'

Pelosi: 'Well that didn't work'.
Click to expand...
Have any links where she said anything close to this lod?

 
”He just got impeached. He’ll be impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does. He’s impeached forever because he violated our Constitution,” she said.

All she accomplished as far as this impeachment is make it a meaningless act. Somehow claiming victory because you got the votes and he's still your president is a win? This is her feeble attempt to claim victory after getting taken to the cleaners. If he really violated the constitution, he would be out. He's your president Nancy, sorry, you lost...AGAIN.

“If I did nothing else, he saw the power of the gavel there,” Pelosi told the AP.  :lol:  What???? Major symptoms if ya know what I mean & I think ya do.

 
I didn't realize so many people didn't understand what impeachment was and who was responsible for what in terms of "their job" during the entire process.  We really do need to focus more on civics in the high schools and middle schools :mellow:  

 
BladeRunner said:
And according to Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar Mark Levin it's clearly unconstitutional.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
It would be nice to hear some news on what’s going on. It’s holidays and Congress is now on break, and they’re awaiting the rules, so it’s possible that’s what’s happening, but I don’t think Pelosi is actually withholding the AOI. She explicitly said she was not in her press conference.

 
Oh, sorry, Nancy, a D law professor from Harvard says Trump has not been impeached until the articles are turned over to the senate. You lose yet again.

A Harvard law professor who was a pro-impeachment witness called by Democrats now says that President Trump might not technically be impeached if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declines to send the articles to the Senate.

“The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work,” Noah Feldman wrote in a column for Bloomberg.

But, he added, the speaker has to eventually forward them to the Senate for the proceedings to be legitimate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It would be nice to hear some news on what’s going on. It’s holidays and Congress is now on break, and they’re awaiting the rules, so it’s possible that’s what’s happening, but I don’t think Pelosi is actually withholding the AOI. She explicitly said she was not in her press conference.
Click to expand...
Well, if "holding on to them" DOESN'T mean having the trial and him being impeached and then they all go on vacation-  then I don't know what does.  She could have easily had them there the next day.

They demanded to have this trial as fast as they could and now suddenly they're in no hurry?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Well, if "holding on to them" DOESN'T mean having the trial and him being impeached and then they all go on vacation-  then I don't know what does.  She could have easily had them there the next day.

They demanded to have this trial as fast as they could and now suddenly they're in no hurry?
Click to expand...
We don’t know if they are. It’s been what one business day since impeachment?

I actually kind of agree with you. As I’ve said though I think the trial rules are generally set without controversy, we just don’t know what’s going on. The only way this makes sense to me is if Pelosi thinks she can get 4 Republicans to agree with her - and the President - on witnesses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the same token the Republicans are claiming they could not call witnesses in the House but here in the Senate they’re declaring they absolutely cannot be called.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
By the same token the Republicans are claiming they could not call witnesses in the House but here in the Senate they’re declaring they absolutely cannot be called.
Click to expand...
It's not supposed to make sense.  None of it is intended to make sense.  Every piece is just an individual confusion bomb designed to give the people who want to believe Trump something to say.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
We don’t know if they are. It’s been what one business day since impeachment?

I actually kind of agree with you. As I’ve said though I think the trial rules are generally set without controversy, we just don’t know what’s going on. The only way this makes sense to me is if Pelosi thinks she can get 4 Republicans to agree with her - and the President - on witnesses.
Click to expand...
Sure, but I doubt she can do anything further.  McConnel isn't going to capitulate to Pelosi.  She has now power in the Senate. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Sure, but I doubt she can do anything further.  McConnell sn't going to capitulate to Pelosi.  She has no power in the Senate. 
Click to expand...
You are correct. Her power is with public opinion. 

70% of the public, including 64% of Republicans, would like to hear from the missing witnesses. All of these arguments being tried out here and elsewhere- that the House didn’t make its case, that it’s not the Senate’s responsibility to call witnesses that the House didn’t- none of that is going to fly with the American people outside of diehard Trump supporters. Because most people want to know if what Trump is being charged with is true. And they get that Mulvaney and Bolton know the truth, and that Trump is moving heaven and Earth, with McConnell’s help, to keep them from testifying. And that looks bad. It looks, frankly, like a cover up, and no amount of argument can eliminate that impression. 

So yeah, Pelosi is eventually going to have to turn over the Articles, sooner rather than later. And McConnell and the Republicans have the power to prevent witnesses from testifying- nobody can prevent them. But if they take this step they may seriously regret it. 

 
timschochet said:
You are correct. Her power is with public opinion. 

70% of the public, including 64% of Republicans, would like to hear from the missing witnesses. All of these arguments being tried out here and elsewhere- that the House didn’t make its case, that it’s not the Senate’s responsibility to call witnesses that the House didn’t- none of that is going to fly with the American people outside of diehard Trump supporters. Because most people want to know if what Trump is being charged with is true. And they get that Mulvaney and Bolton know the truth, and that Trump is moving heaven and Earth, with McConnell’s help, to keep them from testifying. And that looks bad. It looks, frankly, like a cover up, and no amount of argument can eliminate that impression. 

So yeah, Pelosi is eventually going to have to turn over the Articles, sooner rather than later. And McConnell and the Republicans have the power to prevent witnesses from testifying- nobody can prevent them. But if they take this step they may seriously regret it. 
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think most Democrats want to see this but they're the ones that set this dog and pony show up in the first place. 

I think most normal people don't really care as much as you think they do.  In fact, I would even go further and say that most people don't care because they're tired of the dog and pony show and constant theatrics.  

It's just my opinion, but I feel strongly that this is going to backfire badly for the Democrats.  But, I've been wrong before. 

 
BladeRunner said:
I disagree. I think most Democrats want to see this but they're the ones that set this dog and pony show up in the first place. 

I think most normal people don't really care as much as you think they do.  In fact, I would even go further and say that most people don't care because they're tired of the dog and pony show and constant theatrics.  

It's just my opinion, but I feel strongly that this is going to backfire badly for the Democrats.  But, I've been wrong before. 
Click to expand...
I’m sure we both have. But I was using polling to back up my argument above. 

 
The fact that the Prez and Mitch are bleating about "scaredy cat" and "we don't want those Articles anyhow" makes me think she's doing something right.  If they really liked her sitting on them they'd be happy to keep quiet and let her sink.

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
The fact that the Prez and Mitch are bleating about "scaredy cat" and "we don't want those Articles anyhow" makes me think she's doing something right.  If they really liked her sitting on them they'd be happy to keep quiet and let her sink.
Click to expand...
They can’t allow the witnesses. They will do anything, say anything, make any argument they can come up with that will have the net result of not allowing those witnesses, full stop. Even if it means most of the nation thinks the Senate Trial is a whitewash, so be it. They’re counting on the hope that people will forget in time for the election, maybe other stuff will happen, who knows? But Bolton and Mulvaney must never be allowed to testify. 

 
Rep. James Clyburn just now on MSNBC:

"Nancy Pelosi reminds me of all the women in my life: Respectful of Everybody; Fearful of nobody."

 
squistion said:
Rep. James Clyburn just now on MSNBC:

"Nancy Pelosi reminds me of all the women in my life: Respectful of Everybody; Fearful of nobody."
Click to expand...
So a Democrat just said that about another Democrat?  What else is he going to say?  I'm not sure what your point is - what is the purpose of your post?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You are correct. Her power is with public opinion. 

70% of the public, including 64% of Republicans, would like to hear from the missing witnesses. All of these arguments being tried out here and elsewhere- that the House didn’t make its case, that it’s not the Senate’s responsibility to call witnesses that the House didn’t- none of that is going to fly with the American people outside of diehard Trump supporters. Because most people want to know if what Trump is being charged with is true. And they get that Mulvaney and Bolton know the truth, and that Trump is moving heaven and Earth, with McConnell’s help, to keep them from testifying. And that looks bad. It looks, frankly, like a cover up, and no amount of argument can eliminate that impression. 

So yeah, Pelosi is eventually going to have to turn over the Articles, sooner rather than later. And McConnell and the Republicans have the power to prevent witnesses from testifying- nobody can prevent them. But if they take this step they may seriously regret it. 
Click to expand...
You always seem to want to draw conclusions far bigger than what the poll numbers show. Let me give you an example using the numbers you just cited...

POLLSTER: "Alright Mr Johnson, let me get to the first question. When the Senate begins the impeachment trial would you like to hear from direct witnesses we didn't hear from previously who may be able to shed further light on the President's actions?"

JOHNSON: Yes, sure. I suppose if someone has knowledge of something we haven't heard already, yeah why not.
Click to expand...
That does not mean many Republicans or Independents will switch their view on impeachment and removal if no one testifies. It has far more to do with wanting to sound like a good, honest person who is willing to have an open mind when replying to a stranger asking them a question.

We're all very aware of how both sides are going to "sell" it to their base if this is a token process. it's not going to change minds.

 
Maybe 1 in 10 will answer how they really feel...

JOHNSON: "I don't care if they call no witnesses and vote to end this tomorrow"
Click to expand...
But I have full confidence that more than 1 in 10 people feel this way. They're just not answering in that way to a pollster.

 
adonis said:
Why should she have had to have the courts force folks to respond to congressional oversight of the executive branch, performed according to constitutional authority?

She didn't rush it.  She gave Trump plenty of time to comply.  He obstructed congress.  That's an impeachable offense, and he was impeached for it.  Now, it's in the hands of the senate to conduct a fair trial.

Why are you not advocating that a fair trial take place?
Click to expand...
Best part of the whole thing.

Dems have been looking to impeach Trump since the election ended.  They finally went to do it, he refused to play their game--and they impeached him for not participating in the impeachment.  Just goes to show the determination since day 1.

 
timschochet said:
They can’t allow the witnesses. They will do anything, say anything, make any argument they can come up with that will have the net result of not allowing those witnesses, full stop. Even if it means most of the nation thinks the Senate Trial is a whitewash, so be it. They’re counting on the hope that people will forget in time for the election, maybe other stuff will happen, who knows? But Bolton and Mulvaney must never be allowed to testify. 
Click to expand...
I don't think there's anything any witness is going to say that ends in enough Republicans voting for this.  The Dems have laid out their claims of what they think Trump did.  The Republican house members don't feel it is impeachable.  So if several witnesses come in and corroborate "the facts," the Republican view points on it not being impeachable will NOT change.

And I think the Dems know that.  And they're just hoping people will remember until the election.  

 
jm192 said:
Best part of the whole thing.

Dems have been looking to impeach Trump since the election ended.  They finally went to do it, he refused to play their game--and they impeached him for not participating in the impeachment.  Just goes to show the determination since day 1.
Click to expand...
"Play their game"?

You mean, submit answers to a co-equal branch of government requesting cooperation under their constitutional authority to do so?

 
jm192 said:
I don't think there's anything any witness is going to say that ends in enough Republicans voting for this.  The Dems have laid out their claims of what they think Trump did.  The Republican house members don't feel it is impeachable.  So if several witnesses come in and corroborate "the facts," the Republican view points on it not being impeachable will NOT change.

And I think the Dems know that.  And they're just hoping people will remember until the election.  
Click to expand...
I agree. But if those witnesses are allowed to testify, and assuming that Bolton directly contradicts the President (as I’m pretty sure he would) that puts tremendous pressure on a few Senators: namely Collins and Gardner. 

And that’s why McConnell will never let them testify. Not because he cares about protecting Trump, or even Trump’s re-election chances, but because he wants to hold on to his current majority position. 

 
Mr Anonymous said:
You always seem to want to draw conclusions far bigger than what the poll numbers show. Let me give you an example using the numbers you just cited...

That does not mean many Republicans or Independents will switch their view on impeachment and removal if no one testifies. It has far more to do with wanting to sound like a good, honest person who is willing to have an open mind when replying to a stranger asking them a question.

We're all very aware of how both sides are going to "sell" it to their base if this is a token process. it's not going to change minds.
Click to expand...
I’m not arguing they will switch their position on impeachment. 

 
timschochet said:
I’m not arguing they will switch their position on impeachment. 
Click to expand...
Well that's a let down. It would have been much more fun to debate you on this. I do ask - what's the point of posting the poll if you already know it's not reflective of anything meaningful?

 
HellToupee said:
@charliekirk11

Wow:

Is this why Nancy Pelosi impeached Trump for uncovering corruption?

Turns out her son, Paul Pelosi Jr. used the Speaker in a promotional video for an energy company he sits on the board of

Oh—and they also do business in Ukraine
 

https://twitter.com/charliekirk11/status/1210951859705384962?s=21

No surprise here
Click to expand...
That Kirk os spreading conspiracy theories making it sound like there was wrongdoing? True...no real surprise there.

 
Summer Wheat said:
Nancy has always lived the "High on the hog" lifestyle and seemed a better fit as the rich Republican type. Surprised she is a Democrat really.
Click to expand...
Can you school me on this?  Nancy and her husband are worth ~ $150M-$200M.  Are they supposed to live in a trailer and eat spam in order to "keep it real"?  

Isn't it admiral that Pelosi has continually supported policies that would significantly raise her own personal taxes in order to benefit society as a whole?  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
Should Nancy Pelosi go to Taiwan?
Replies
49
Views
883
HellToupee
HellToupee
GordonGekko
Lyricist Nancy Pelosi Begs Pro-Choice Voters For $15 To Attain A Team Blue Majority That Already Exists (6/30/22 18:29 PST)
Replies
17
Views
621
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
303
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top