Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Rooney told reporters on Friday when asked about the political consequences of potentially impeaching Trump that “I didn’t take this job to keep it. . . . I took this job to do the right thing at all times.”

When will more Republicans get a back bone?!

Oh and this is Rep. Rooney from Florida. It’s about time!

He is retiring. Love how these brave republicans speak out just before they retire...

[Anonymous]

Question for lawyers:

If Justice Roberts presides over the trial in the Senate, can the House Democrats ask for summary judgement (hope that's the correct term)? Could Roberts say the evidence is compelling, that Trump is guilty as charged and order the Senate to remove him from office?

That would save GOP Senators from casting votes, but still remove the POTUS.

Or does that only happen in regular trials?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for lawyers:

If Justice Roberts presides over the trial in the Senate, can the House Democrats ask for summary judgement (hope that's the correct term)? Could Roberts say the evidence is compelling, that Trump is guilty as charged and order the Senate to remove him from office?

That would save GOP Senators from casting votes, but still remove the POTUS.

Or does that only happen in regular trials?

No. The Constitution is clear that 2/3 of the Senate must vote to convict.

[Anonymous]

Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

[Anonymous]

Another question for lawyers:

If Justice Roberts presides over the trial in the Senate, can McConnell make the trail short or does Roberts gain m ore or less complete control over the process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

Who said impeachment and removal aren’t political?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

The evidence will be in the articles of impeachment, which is what they will take a vote on. You really need to brush up on how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

Who said impeachment and removal aren’t political?

Nervous Nancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

The evidence will be in the articles of impeachment, which is what they will take a vote on. You really need to brush up on how this works.

Sure it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

The evidence will be in the articles of impeachment, which is what they will take a vote on. You really need to brush up on how this works.

Sure it will.

What do you think is going to happen?

[Anonymous]

The House will maliciously broadcast the actual words spoken by Trump, Mulvaney, Volker, Sondland, et al.

Dems never play fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The House will maliciously broadcast the actual words spoken by Trump, Mulvaney, Volker, Sondland, et al.

Dems never play fair.

If they do that, then there is no reason for the Dems to vote for impeachment.
Sounds as if much of the closed door testimony simply doesn't fit the narrative that Schiff is promoting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mulvaney, with Chris Wallace on Fox, precisely describes a quid pro quo but says it wasn’t a quid pro quo.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-wallace-brutally-grills-mick-mulvaney-as-he-attempts-to-walk-back-briefing-comments-you-said-what-you-said/amp/

Things Chris Wallace should, but does not say -
A) no, the President should not be poking his nose into a DOJ investigation
B) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks a country is corrupt
C) no, the President does not have the right to hold up aid that Congress approved because he thinks other countries aren’t paying more (when they actually are)

It still goes very, very badly for Mulvaney.

Thank you for posting, but this ultimately doesn't matter.

We know the House will impeach.

We know the Senate will only convict if McConnell worries his majority is at stake.

But, no, this isn't political now, is it?
Hopefully the House will reveal their "evidence" before they take a vote. I doubt it, though.

Of course they will, that is the whole point.