So more setting the stage to keep delaying. Poor etc and GJ. They keep getting kicked in the nuts.

If we get into a bad shooting war with Iran it will all be Nancy's fault for not taking out the imminent threat to our Democracy she identified through impeachment (I got imminent right this time Hawg )

backintexas2013 said:

---

So more setting the stage to keep delaying. Poor etc and GJ. They keep getting kicked in the nuts.

---

just you wait. A little more investigating and their case will be ROCK ****ING SOLID.

MOCO9 said:

---

I love when liberals say "no one is above the law". No better time to respond with "what are your thoughts on illegal immigration".

---

Unfortunately we have seen for three years that Dems are clearly above the law.

Is Nancy sober enough to write this or is Lawfare being her staff?

MOCO9 said:

---

I love when liberals say "no one is above the law". No better time to respond with "what are your thoughts on illegal immigration".

---

They didn't cite any laws broken in the articles of impeachment

EKUAg said:

---

Is Nancy sober enough to write this or is Lawfare being her staff?

---

Lawfare lawyers. I have to say as much as I have lost faith in my former profession, the fact that these incompetent folk pull down millions and millions of dollars per year for being such crappy lawyers is quite disheartening.

From all that has been exposed so far, it seems that the Republican lawyers are quite more competent than the Democrat lawyers, in general. Advantage Trump !

Wow

Turns out we've been doing it wrong all along Nancy!

Apparently if a grand jury decides there is enough evidence to proceed to trial then the trial jury MUST find the defendant guilty regardless of what occurs at trial or else it's a violation of their oath to uphold justice

I'm sure all you libs would agree that's the sort of Justice YOU would want for yourself or your loved ones

[/unexpected cowardly silence from the left]

Quote:

---

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Sunday that he is mulling rule changes in an effort to quickly start the Senate impeachment trial of President Trump without the articles that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is withholding from the upper chamber
Graham told Fox News's "Sunday Morning Futures" that he would work with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to change the chamber's rules if the articles are not sent this week.

"What I would do if she continues to refuse to send the articles as required by the Constitution, I would work with Sen. McConnell to change the rules of the Senate to start the trial without her if necessary," he said.

The South Carolina senator accused Pelosi of a "political stunt" meant to "extort...a trial to her liking."

"If we don't get the articles this week, then we need to take matters in our own hands and change the rules, deem them to be delivered to the Senate, so we can start the trial, invite the House over to participate if they would like. If they don't come, dismiss the case and get on with governing the country," Graham said.

---

LINK

Would that take just a 51 vote or 2/3?

Rockdoc said:

---

Would that take just a 51 vote or 2/3?

---

Rule change, 51.

I hope people realize impeachment isn't the goal to the leftists/lawfare, it's the means. The last refuge guy writing here is right; what they really want is any/all surveillance info they can get their hands on to damage Trump for 2020. I'm concerned even folks like Pompeo and Lindsey Graham don't get it even now.

Once you contextualize this, it makes more sense from their perspective; they know they are screwed on impeachment, and have known that through the whole clown show, but they want all the wire tap/dirt digging info normally/properly concealed under federal grand jury rules for the attorney general's special counsel investigation, the report for which shouldn't even have been made public but whatever. Mueller' s crew of lawfare sleaze built on the insurance policy they were collecting on; a counter-intelligence investigation.

Quote:

---

It is our further contention to the Mueller material was collected with the intention to deliver this material to the House crews: Team Schiff (HPSCI) and Team Nadler (HJC).

Meaning, and it is important that everyone understand this:

the Mueller investigation used their massively expanded scope authority (2017 and 2018), and purposefully went into a bunch of irrelevant sideline issues (unrelated to Trump-Russia) because they were using their legal authority to assemble massive files of political research material to leave for discovery and/or leak-use in 2020.

The outcome of the Mueller investigation is irrelevant.

What Mueller wrote in his report is irrelevant.

The investigation itself was purposed to dig, legally, into every aspect of Donald Trump, his family, his friends, his finances, his companies, his legal holdings, his lawyers, his accountants, his history all of it and they did so under both Title-1 and Title-3 surveillance authority because the Mueller probe was a counterintelligence operation.

President Trump: travel records, phone records, electronic files, electronic communications, emails, electronic records, family files, medical records, bank records, tax records, THE WORKS all with unlimited surveillance authority as granted by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the useful status of an unlimited counterintelligence operation. Think about the scale of the material Weismann and Mueller gained access to.

Think about the scale of these Trump files we now call the Mueller Dossier.

---

It's 8:59 AM on January 6, 2020 and Donald J. Trump is STILL your POTUS.

Quote:

---

During the present impeachment controversy, I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former National Security Advisor. My colleague, Dr. Charles Kupperman, faced with a House committee subpoena on the one hand, and a Presidential directive not to testify on the other, sought final resolution of this Constitutional conflict from the Federal judiciary. After my counsel informed the House committee that I too would seek judicial resolution of these Constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. Nevertheless, I publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of Dr. Kupperman's case.

But both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. Judge Richard Leon, in a carefully reasoned opinion on December 30, held Dr. Kupperman's case to be moot, and therefore did not reach the separation-of-powers issues.

The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.

Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

---

That would give Pelosi till the end of the week to send over the articles.

Quote:

---

I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

---

Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.

tsuag10 said:

---

Quote:

---

During the present impeachment controversy, I have tried to meet my obligations both as a citizen and as former National Security Advisor. My colleague, Dr. Charles Kupperman, faced with a House committee subpoena on the one hand, and a Presidential directive not to testify on the other, sought final resolution of this Constitutional conflict from the Federal judiciary. After my counsel informed the House committee that I too would seek judicial resolution of these Constitutional issues, the committee chose not to subpoena me. Nevertheless, I publicly resolved to be guided by the outcome of Dr. Kupperman's case.

But both the President and the House of Representatives opposed his effort on jurisdictional grounds, and each other on the merits. The House committee went so far as to withdraw its subpoena to Dr. Kupperman in a deliberate attempt to moot the case and deprive the court of jurisdiction. Judge Richard Leon, in a carefully reasoned opinion on December 30, held Dr. Kupperman's case to be moot, and therefore did not reach the separation-of-powers issues.

The House has concluded its Constitutional responsibility by adopting Articles of Impeachment related to the Ukraine matter. It now falls to the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional obligation to try impeachments, and it does not appear possible that a final judicial resolution of the still-unanswered Constitutional questions can be obtained before the Senate acts.

Accordingly, since my testimony is once again at issue, I have had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study. I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

---

---

I doubt this happens

Democrats, elected official and voters alike, should answer for the absolute **** show they've generated.

I have zero respect for any person affiliated with the Democratic Party.

aggiehawg said:

---

---

As Hawg already posted, it's the same as me preemptively turning down a date with Hilde Osland.

Rule 1:

https://instagr.am/p/B4-DLKzBdQ4

captkirk said:

---

---

Kudos! That is on par with rockythedog's virtuosity.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

As Hawg already posted, it's the same as me preemptively turning down a date with Hilde Osland.

Rule 1:

https://instagr.am/p/B4-DLKzBdQ4

---

Great Googly Moogly!

Ag with kids said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

As Hawg already posted, it's the same as me preemptively turning down a date with Hilde Osland.

Rule 1:

https://instagr.am/p/B4-DLKzBdQ4

---

Great Googly Moogly!

---

Yes indeed but, I suspect that if she sat too close to the fireplace some of the pieces would start to melt. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that.

Quote:

---

Yes indeed but, I suspect that if she sat too close to the fireplace some of the pieces would start to melt.

---

"Smokin' hot bewbs" takes on a whole new meaning, doesn't it? LMAO.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

---

Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.

---

One side wants more documents and witnesses.
The other side wants to throw it away and stick their head in the sand.

It's obvious why a guilty person would want to hide evidence and gag witnesses.

McConnell is playing a dangerous game here if they acquit in a sham trial and the public thinks they were part of the cover up. All the facts will come out eventually.

---

And, again, you play lawyer, but have no comprehension of the basics of American legal process. GFY, bot.

He plays lawyer, but mainly just keeps coming back because he can't leave it alone and actually knows the truth. It eats him up.

Chance Chase McMasters said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify.

---

Profile in courage since he's fairly certain there isn't a total of 51 votes in the Senate for live witnesses.

---

One side wants more documents and witnesses.
The other side wants to throw it away and stick their head in the sand.

It's obvious why a guilty person would want to hide evidence and gag witnesses.

McConnell is playing a dangerous game here if they acquit in a sham trial and the public thinks they were part of the cover up. All the facts will come out eventually.

---

Come out for a debate, comrade.

Law degrees from reddit U.