Politics IMPEACHMENT 2020: THE BIG SNOOZE

[VanillaGorilla]

Nancy Pelosi’s State of the Union stunt may have broken the law, Rep. Matt Gaetz says
By Kenneth Garger

February 6, 2020 | 12:35am

Rep. Matt Gaetz (left) and Nancy Pelosi tearing President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech (right). AP

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz filed an ethics complaint against Nancy Pelosi that said the House Speaker possibly violated numerous House rules — and maybe even broke the law — by tearing up a copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech.

The Florida legislator sent a letter to the House Committee on Ethics requesting they open an investigation and shared the missive on Twitter.

Gaetz wrote that “Speaker Pelosi’s gesture was deeply offensive and appears to violate clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XXIII,” which dictate the House’s official code of conduct.

“Her behaviour does not ‘reflect creditably on the House,’ nor does it follow “the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.”

Gaetz, in his letter, said Pelosi’s “unseemly behaviour certainly warrants censure.”

The lawmaker asked that after conducting the ethics probe, the committee make referrals to the Department of Justice “for further investigation and prosecution.”

Pelosi, Gaetz alleges in the letter, “appears to be in violation” of a law that prohibits willfully destroying paper or documents “filed or deposited” in public office.

“There is no question that Speaker Pelosi ‘mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed’ the copy of the President’s address provided to her at the beginning of the evening,” Gaetz wrote, quoting language from the law.

After Tuesday night’s State of the Union, Pelosi told reporters that she shredded the papers because it was “the courteous thing to do,” a point Gaetz mentions in his letter as evidence to her alleged wrongdoing.

Republicans are such sensitive snowflakes. Freaking out over paper being ripped.. like little snotty babies.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

People need to start giving a shit. That's the only way to get this orange POS out. If the general public only half pays attention to the news without realizing the implications, we are totally fucked.

TOO BAD THE TRUMPY BEARS ARE ALL WATCHING WRASSLIN', FUCKING THEIR SIBLINGS AND RUNNING INTO BRICK WALLS

 

[yankeesince59]

wtf?

 

[Hoopguru]

They already screwed up by touting and nominating Hillary 4 years ago and now with the exception of Bloomberg, none of the other hopefuls give me a warm and fuzzy feeling of being able to stop Trump in November.

agreed..I really thought Carvels comments were right on mark about the party needs to get serious about what they want to be, either an Ideological Cult that leans way to left or a party for majority power.
He mentioned that if EW would quit holding onto Bernie's left rear end she'd be a much stronger candidate. Start talking about things people care about and get on with it.
Im thinking Pete and Amy should go more center as they can get independents and libertarians to come their way if they over some compromise and a bridge to cross.

 

[CupWizier]

It would be a help if a Democrat would run for president who could, you know, actually win.

well, what trump proved is that anyone can win a presidential race. If a lying misongynistic bully that constantly lies can win, why not anyone else? Standards for a president have been lowered well below what anyone should expect.

 

[CupWizier]

Nancy Pelosi’s State of the Union stunt may have broken the law, Rep. Matt Gaetz says
By Kenneth Garger

February 6, 2020 | 12:35am

Rep. Matt Gaetz (left) and Nancy Pelosi tearing President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech (right). AP

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz filed an ethics complaint against Nancy Pelosi that said the House Speaker possibly violated numerous House rules — and maybe even broke the law — by tearing up a copy of President Trump’s State of the Union speech.

The Florida legislator sent a letter to the House Committee on Ethics requesting they open an investigation and shared the missive on Twitter.

Gaetz wrote that “Speaker Pelosi’s gesture was deeply offensive and appears to violate clauses 1 and 2 of House Rule XXIII,” which dictate the House’s official code of conduct.

“Her behaviour does not ‘reflect creditably on the House,’ nor does it follow “the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.”

Gaetz, in his letter, said Pelosi’s “unseemly behaviour certainly warrants censure.”

The lawmaker asked that after conducting the ethics probe, the committee make referrals to the Department of Justice “for further investigation and prosecution.”

Pelosi, Gaetz alleges in the letter, “appears to be in violation” of a law that prohibits willfully destroying paper or documents “filed or deposited” in public office.

“There is no question that Speaker Pelosi ‘mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed’ the copy of the President’s address provided to her at the beginning of the evening,” Gaetz wrote, quoting language from the law.

After Tuesday night’s State of the Union, Pelosi told reporters that she shredded the papers because it was “the courteous thing to do,” a point Gaetz mentions in his letter as evidence to her alleged wrongdoing.

What's the charge? Ripping up paper? Is that a felony?

 

[Hoopguru]

well, what trump proved is that anyone can win a presidential race. If a lying misongynistic bully that constantly lies can win, why not anyone else? Standards for a president have been lowered well below what anyone should expect.

So you think Bernie Sanders can win? Im not sure Cup, I get your point but there are many Americans that don't totally buy into demo socialism, especially in the States that Hillary should have won. Same voters mayt democrats/independents that voted against Hillary rather than Trump. I want the best candidate possible to earn those votes back and I don't see it happening with Bernie. I could be wrong though I'll admit that.

 

[CupWizier]

So you think Bernie Sanders can win? Im not sure Cup, I get your point but there are many Americans that don't totally buy into demo socialism, especially in the States that Hillary should have won. Same voters mayt democrats/independents that voted against Hillary rather than Trump. I want the best candidate possible to earn those votes back and I don't see it happening.

We had no history per say on trump as a president. Now we do. Now he can take credit for an economy, unemployment and stock market improving, but they were already in an upward trajectory under Obama so how much can trump really be given credit for that? Remember the saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Not sure many people want to be fooled again.

 

[Hoopguru]

We had no history per say on trump as a president. Now we do. Now he can take credit for an economy, unemployment and stock market improving, but they were already in an upward trajectory under Obama so how much can trump really be given credit for that? Remember the saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Not sure many people want to be fooled again.

ok, but what about Bernie can he win the States that Hillary should have?

 

[CupWizier]

ok, but what about Bernie can he win the States that Hillary should have?

I have no idea. Are we going to have a clean election this time? What I would like to know is what's trump going to campaign with? His last cam[paign was built on fear and the USA being in such horrible shape (we know that was all lies). If he tries that same tactic he's discrediting himself this time. He only knows one tactic and that's to attack and lie.

 

[MARIS61]

I must confess I am Spartacus, your deep state mole here in S2.

Fake news!

Spartacus died yesterday.

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

 

[Hoopguru]

I have no idea. Are we going to have a clean election this time? What I would like to know is what's trump going to campaign with? His last cam[paign was built on fear and the USA being in such horrible shape (we know that was all lies). If he tries that same tactic he's discrediting himself this time. He only knows one tactic and that's to attack and lie.

I think when he debates against whom ever it will expose him especially to midwestern states and the ones Hillary lost.
I’d rather not see him debate against democratic socialism as I think it gives him an edge in those areas.
Time will telll.

 

[CupWizier]

I think when he debates against whom ever it will expose him especially to midwestern states and the ones Hillary lost.
I’d rather not see him debate against democratic socialism as I think it gives him an edge in those areas.
Time will telll.

He has reportedly said he won;t debate this time around. He's a lazy man who knows he gets exposed when he opens his mouth especially when it isn't at a rally. There are so many talking points that an opponent can use against him.

 

[CupWizier]

 

[e_blazer]

Impeached basically means "charged". Not sure that's such a big stain when the recorded verdict is for an acquittal. I get that the Dems have to claim some sort of a win out of this shit show, but I'm sure Team Trump will be waiving the acquittal flag.

 

[CupWizier]

Impeached basically means "charged". Not sure that's such a big stain when the recorded verdict is for an acquittal. I get that the Dems have to claim some sort of a win out of this shit show, but I'm sure Team Trump will be waiving the acquittal flag.

Not much of an aquittal either when no witnesses or documents turned over and the defendant obstructed by refusing to allow people to testify and didn't allow requested documents to ne turned over to the house. Everyone with half a brain knows it was a shame of a trial.

 

[e_blazer]

Not much of an aquittal either when no witnesses or documents turned over and the defendant obstructed by refusing to allow people to testify and didn't allow requested documents to ne turned over to the house. Everyone with half a brain knows it was a shame of a trial.

Oh, sure, both sides are going to say the other side was just playing politics and were unethical douchebags. IMHO, they're both right.

 

[yankeesince59]

"impeached" means exactly what it implies.

Split hairs all you want but Trump was IMPEACHED. And history will judge him as such.

 

[CupWizier]

Oh, sure, both sides are going to say the other side was just playing politics and were unethical douchebags. IMHO, they're both right.

But have you ever seen a trial where witnesses weren't allowed to testify. I think the the pubs blew it by not allowing any witnesses as they knew they already had the votes. Gave the dems some good ammunition going forward. trump can wave his acquittal flag all he wants, but it's obviously a shallow victory for a guy well known for lying and cheating.

 

[e_blazer]

But have you ever seen a trial where witnesses weren't allowed to testify. I think the the pubs blew it by not allowing any witnesses as they knew they already had the votes. Gave the dems some good ammunition going forward. trump an wave his acquittal flag all he wants, but it's obviously a shallow victory for a guy well known for lying and cheating.

In my view, the Dems totally blew it when they didn't take the time to get the witnesses that they wanted prior to the impeachment vote. I know, it would have taken time, but there was zero chance that the Republicans were ever going to allow witnesses to be called in the Senate proceedings. Frankly, from what I've read, that was the same in the Clinton impeachment. It would have taken time to bust though a claim of Ex. Priv., but from a political standpoint, I'd certainly think that months of bashing Trump for trying to block getting witnesses before the House would have been a lot better than a quick acquittal by the Senate.

 

[yankeesince59]

In my view, the Dems totally blew it when they didn't take the time to get the witnesses that they wanted prior to the impeachment vote. I know, it would have taken time, but there was zero chance that the Republicans were ever going to allow witnesses to be called in the Senate proceedings. Frankly, from what I've read, that was the same in the Clinton impeachment. It would have taken time to bust though a claim of Ex. Priv., but from a political standpoint, I'd certainly think that months of bashing Trump for trying to block getting witnesses before the House would have been a lot better than a quick acquittal by the Senate.

They tried to 'get witnesses"...and were stonewalled., which meant it could have been hung up in courts for months...or longer.
I don't think they had much choice.

 

[CupWizier]

In my view, the Dems totally blew it when they didn't take the time to get the witnesses that they wanted prior to the impeachment vote. I know, it would have taken time, but there was zero chance that the Republicans were ever going to allow witnesses to be called in the Senate proceedings. Frankly, from what I've read, that was the same in the Clinton impeachment. It would have taken time to bust though a claim of Ex. Priv., but from a political standpoint, I'd certainly think that months of bashing Trump for trying to block getting witnesses before the House would have been a lot better than a quick acquittal by the Senate.

Witnesses were allowed in the Clinton trial and the November election would have likely come and gone before it reached a final verdict in the Supreme court for the subpeonas to be decided. Doesn't help when we have an AG not doing his job as he should have enforced the subpeonas. How long were the dems suppose to wait?

 

[Lanny]

The economy has been on the rise ever since 2010 and Obama.

Well, gee, I'm sure glad Trump didn't stomp on it, then.[/QUOTE]
It could have been so much better. And now look at what's happening to both the annual deficit and the national debt. Republicans no longer worry about the debt until a Democrat gets elected.

 

[Lanny]

Witnesses were allowed in the Clinton trial and the November election would have likely come and gone before it reached a final verdict in the Supreme court for the subpeonas to be decided. Doesn't help when we have an AG not doing his job as he should have enforced the subpeonas. How long were the dems suppose to wait?

Thousands of pages of documents were released. Zero pages of documents were released by Trump. Trump also opposed every single witness requested.

 

[CupWizier]

They tried to 'get witnesses"...and were stonewalled., which meant it could have been hung up in courts for months...or longer.

I believe it was sometime around July or August that McGahn was issued his subpeona and then the court ruled he must obey it in November and yet nobody from the DOJ would enforce it and still waiting for him to testify. That's at least 5 months.

 

[yankeesince59]

I believe it was sometime around July or August that McGahn was issued his subpeona and then the court ruled he must obey it in November and yet nobody from the DOJ would enforce it and still waiting for him to testify. That's at least 5 months.

Exactimundo.

 

[calvin natt]

I wonder when someone will try to assassinate Trump. If a Dem did this shit no doubt your traditional white gun nut would have ended this a long time ago.