Impeachment

Pelosi Will Bring Impeachment Inquiry Vote to House Floor

Clear your calendars for the rest of the election.

|

Later this week, a resolution on investigating President Donald Trump will be brought before the House of Representatives for a vote, turning the semi-official process officially official.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) sent out a "Dear Colleague" letter today (that also functions as a press release), stating that the resolution formalizing the inquiry is moving forward:

This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.

This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.

The letter somewhat testily observes that Trump, White House staff and counsel, and allied Republicans are not treating the ongoing inquiry and investigation as though it's legitimate because the House hasn't voted on it. Pelosi makes it clear that such a vote is not required, and previous impeachment inquiries often have not had such votes. But nevertheless, because the House is having a hard time getting witnesses to cooperate (just this morning, former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman blew off a congressional subpoena and did not appear as ordered), Pelosi says the House will make it official.

Pelosi includes the short summary of the resolution in the letter: "Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes."

To be very clear, this is not a vote to impeach Trump. It is a vote to formalize that Trump is being investigated for possible impeachment. If the House eventually votes to impeach Trump (which seems increasingly likely), it will be the Republican-controlled Senate who holds the impeachment trial. It would take a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove Trump.

NEXT: The Ballad of FDA v. Brown & Williamson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, in other words, a vote needs to be held to decide if they’ll vote to impeach so a senate will not convict.

    If I was them I would save my strength and apply my efforts to something like winning an election and if that is futile then I would settle on masturbation and eating Cheetohs.

    1. Searching for a supplemental source of income?
      This is the easiest way I have found to earn $7000+ per month over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.
      go to home media tech tab for more detail.☛ https://bit.ly/36brMRr

      1. Does it involve masturbation and Cheetohs?

        1. How much vacation time?

          1. Is it a union shop?

        2. It’s a camming site so if someone thinks you’re hot and Cheetohs are their thing you can make that kind of money.

      2. Will I be facing state or federal time?

    2. Detailing Trump’s impeachable acts in an open Senate trial is how they’re going to win the next election. The Senate doesn’t need to convict in order for him to go down in flames in the court of public opinion once his dirty laundry is exposed.

      1. Where exactly is his dirty laundry hidden?

      2. Yeah, because they have all this dirty laundry that they are holding back or have tried to get out but the press just won’t print it or something.

        Jesus Christ what fucking drugs do you people take?

        1. Yes you’re correct, it’s all right there in the open for anyone to see, it’s just that the MAGA turds pretend they can’t see it.

          So yeah I guess a trial would be less about revealing new facts, and more about stripping away the pathetic “arguments” about process and transparency that Trump chuds are clinging to. It would also have the advantage of putting craven GOP senators on the record with a vote and endangering their own political prospects in 2020.

          1. There is nothing right there. if there were anything, Democrats would be falling all over themselves to have public hearing and vote for impeachment instead of what they are doing.

            Trump is likely going to be re-elected. If he isn’t, it won’t be because of this bullshit. Don’t you people get tired of being lied to?

            1. Just not enough half-educated bigots and superstitious slack-jaws left in America — not even in the shambling backwaters destroyed by bright flight — to give Trump another chance at a three-cushion trick shot in the electoral college.

              The main reason Trump won’t win in 2020 is that the American electorate will be four years less rural, less white, less backward, less bigoted, and less religious.

              1. You’ll be dead by then.

              2. So, more ghetto?

            2. People never get tired of the lie they want to believe.

              1. ^ This is great.

                1. This is the entire premise of ‘make America great again’

            3. (1) Trading the favor of the United States government for private gain is very much something “there”. And how much fig-leaf defense is left to deny that’s exactly what Trump did? I apologize for using an ugly image, but that fig leaf has shrunk smaller each day since the whistleblower’s report was made public.

              The smart money is already on the “defense” Trump is too incompetent to break the law successfully. Andrew McCarthy just peddled a version of that over at the National Review. I think he described it as the “no harm, no foul” defense. Apparently Trump tried to shoot a stranger on Fifth Avenue but missed…. No Problemo for the cult faithful!!!!

              (2) John : “Democrats would be falling all over themselves to have public hearing and vote for impeachment instead of what they are doing.” This is in response to Pelosi announcing the House will have a formal vote for impeachment proceedings and hold public hearings. Get the impression John is disconnected from reality?

              (3) John – one of the biggest Trump bootlickers around – actually says this : “Don’t you people get tired of being lied to?” Poor John isn’t afraid to look like an idiot, is he?

              1. Shitstains suffering from TDS have voices in their heads.

              2. Do you have actual examples of “trading the favor of the US for private gain”? (I mean example of the Trump administration doing it? There are plenty of examples from the Obama administration.)

              3. John unironically links to Breitbart as a source of information.

                At least he shows his work, I guess.

              4. No court has ever held information as a private gain. All the info on Biden was likewise known in 2016. You’re too dumb to get this.

                Pelosi literally says she is only having the vote because the GOP pressured her you retarded fuck.

                You, grb, directly applauded Reid lying about Romneys taxes on the senate floor. You continue to repeat Obama’s lies about ACA. You’re a fucking lie absorbing dumbass.

                1. Pretty pathetic watching you trying to rationalize obvious corruption and invitation of foreign interests into our elections.

                  1. Pretty pathetic watching you switch to yet another sockpuppet account cytotoxic.

                2. JesseAz,

                  (1) Trump is guilty of extortion, using military supplies critically needed by a desperate country under invasion by Russia.

                  (2) He demanded a public puppet show to aid his political campaign, using conspiracy garbage on CloudStrike and the Shokin firing which can’t stand five minutes of honest scrutiny.

                  (3) He involved dozens of people in this criminal shakedown and left a long broad slime trail that is proving easy to follow.

                  (4) Tomorrow it will be the turn of Army lieutenant colonel Alexander Vindman, a Purple Heart veteran of Iraq. He twice went to the NSC’s lead counsel to object to what was going on, both before and after the July 25 call, which he was present to hear. From Lt Col Vindman’s prepared statement : “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”

                  (5) And there is much more testimony to come. But you, JesseAz, claim this wasn’t extortion to force Ukraine to collude with Trump’s private attorney and campaign, because : “No court has ever held information as a private gain”

                  (6) Which is probably the most shit-for-brains stupid thing anyone has ever claimed in this forum. Congratulations. I hope you get a trophy.

                  (7) Oh, and this :

                  “You, grb, directly applauded Reid lying about Romneys taxes on the senate floor”

                  is a total, complete, one-hundred percent lying-thru-your-teeth full-of-shit falsehood without a single grain of truth.

                  (8) You’re what a Trump supporter looks like : Embarrassingly braindead and completely dishonest.

                  1. If the Democrat leadership in the House thought that they had solid evidence to support any of that, Pelosi would be scheduling a vote on a bill of impeachment rather than a vote to formalize the investigation.

                    1. Hilarious. This forum has been full of people who said Pelosi would never hold any vote on impeachment. She was too scared over Democrats holding vulnerable seats we were told. Impeachment is nothing but an empty game we were told.

                      Of course that was stupidity of a high order. Pelosi had already committed to a formal inquiry, public hearings and releasing all dispositions. In fact, look at the past impeachments we keep hearing about : Nixon & Clinton. Both were proceeded by long criminal investigations by law enforcement and secret grand jury. It made obvious and perfect legal sense that the House would open Trump’s impeachment inquiry with closed disposition hearings. When are evidentiary dispositions ever held publicly?

                      So right-wing-world has been wrong about EVERYTHING up to now, yet we already see the herd migrating to a new set of comically bad predictions. Pelosi has nothing. The public hearings and votes are a sign of “weakness”. She won’t hold a final vote.

                      Well, I told you she would hold this vote; and I told you see she would hold public hearing. Let me help you some more : She has enough evidence now to win a final vote. She has strong support in the polls. That’s what laying down a strong base of evidence has accomplished. And she is getting ever more evidence, day by day. You see, Trump isn’t only a crook, but a dim-witted one as well. There are fingerprints everywhere……

                    2. ” This forum has been full of people who said Pelosi would never hold any vote on impeachment. ”

                      I was never one of them.

                      ” She has enough evidence now to win a final vote. ”

                      In the House which is largely populated by true believers.

                      The question is can they win a conviction in the current Senate.

                    3. “”This forum has been full of people who said Pelosi would never hold any vote on impeachment.””

                      She is still not. The headline is a bit misleading. She is hold a vote to formalize the investigation. This is NOT an impeachment vote.

                  2. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

                  3. “Trump is guilty of extortion, using military supplies critically needed by a desperate country under invasion by Russia.”

                    Curious, would you describe the money Obama withheld from Iran the same way?

                    No? you’ve got inconsistent principles? shocking… just shocking

                    1. The money Obama withheld from Iran ?!?

                      Ya know, Ryan, I think you have your right-wing talking points hopelessly jumbled up. Do a little research and sort that mess out and then get back to me…..

                  4. “The question is can they win a conviction in the current Senate”

                    Probably not. But it will good for everyone to see that.

                    1. Yep, just like Bill Clinton.

                3. “you retarded fuck”

                  Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it. Sloppy kisses, thousand-yard stares, and random yelling can be hot as you rub your hands all over their pear-shaped body.

              5. “I think he described it as the “no harm, no foul” defense”

                Wait til you see all the servers in his basement

              6. Soooo, Biden trading $1 Billion in US aide to the Ukraine in order to get the guy investigating his son’s company fired, that’s okey dokey? In 2016, Biden was VP, not Trumps rival. He’s not Trumps rival today because he doesn’t have the nomination. But Trump was the GOP candidate in 2016 when the Obama Administration was wiretapping his phones and spying on him. AND having the FBI use foreign generated information (paid for by the Clinton campaign) presented to the FISA court. So why is one mention of hey, can you look into the corruption of Hunter Biden wrong but spying on the GOP candidate right? If someone has to go to jail, it should be Obama and Co.
                But so far, Nancy hasn’t called for the vote. STILL. And her vulnerable congress people from red states are hearing about how unhappy they are with this kangaroo court.
                And sadly, the democrats don’t even know that Adam Schiff is mocked and ridiculed in more states than not.

          2. Rhayader October.28.2019 at 5:55 pm
            “Yes you’re correct, it’s all right there in the open for anyone to see, it’s just that the MAGA turds pretend they can’t see it.”

            Shitstains suffering from TDS have voices in their heads/

          3. I enjoy dumbasses like you because you expose liberals. We have a media who has literally aired all of Trumps dirty laundry and even invented more where they could. Then they did their best to mute Democrats like AOC, Biden, and that california Rep. You prefer to live in ignorance. That is your chosen preference. The rest of us look at economic numbers and results and dont deify the president.

        2. Pretty funny there, John!

      3. After years of spying on Trump, investigating Trump, and harassing anybody who has had any association with Trump, it’s pretty clear that there are no “impeachable acts”.

        That’s all the more remarkable given the blatant and widespread corruption in the Obama administration.

        1. No acts that blind right wing partisans like you consider impeachable (if Trump does it). If Obama had withheld foreign aid for info on a political opponent you’d be screaming for his head.
          And yes there’s plenty of things Obama did in fact do that he should have been impeached over. Life not being a blind Republican or Democrat cheerleader is fun, try it some time.

          1. No acts that blind right wing partisans like you consider impeachable (if Trump does it).

            You’re welcome to explain it to me.

            If Obama had withheld foreign aid for info on a political opponent you’d be screaming for his head.

            I voted for Obama and used to be a Democrat. As it turned out, both Obama and Biden did much worse. You should read up on it, there are plenty of articles and books on it. But an ignorant, blind partisan a-hole like you who pretends to be fair minded wouldn’t know about that.

            1. “And yes there’s plenty of things Obama did in fact do that he should have been impeached over”

              NOYB2: “As it turned out, both Obama and Biden did much worse. You should read up on it” “But an ignorant, blind partisan a-hole like you who pretends to be fair minded wouldn’t know about that.”

              Gotta work on your reading comprehension hombre. I dont know how to help you here. Just read better

          2. I thought withholding funds for political purposes was wrong… so describe to be what Obama was doing by holding Iran’s money hostage until they signed an arms deal

          3. Congress approved the “withholding” and it was done BEFORE an investigation inquiry was submitted. What floors me is your entire assumption is based on the idea that the US has a Constitutional responsibility to disperse foreign aid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      4. Lol.

        Ignorant of America history there, eh?

    3. This is part of the Democrats strategy to win the election. It’s what Rhayader says below.

      (To be clear, unlike Rhayader, I don’t think they going to succeed.)

      1. It is not likely that this sideshow changes anyone’s opinion. The left went voting for him to begin with, and the right have no alternative because the options on the left are literally the wicked witch and a host of winged monkeys.
        Can either side get enough “don’t care that much” voters out that didn’t show up last cycle?

        1. A nation of 300 million, and the best candidates we could come up with last time were Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?

          1. Think about how bad its going to be this time.

            Donald Trump and – pick one of the Democratic candidates.

      2. (To be clear, this is your 2nd sockpuppet account in this thread, cytotoxic)

    4. Wouldn’t you end up with orange genitelia?

      1. It’s a small price to pay.

    5. Anything that helps show the oubliette what traitors the democrats party really is will be useful in disposing of them.

      1. “oubliette”

        I’m not sure that word means what you think it means.

  2. “just this morning, former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman blew off a congressional subpoena and did not appear as ordered”

    #lifegoals

    1. The Obama administration spent 6 years blowing off subpoenas from the Republican Congress. And the Obama DOJ refused to enforce the contempt citation given to Holder for admitting he lied under oath to Congress.

      Somehow, blowing off Congress is now a big deal. Whatever.

      1. That’s the fun part. Yet another opportunity to rub the previous administration in everyone’s faces.

        1. The fun part has been achieving American progress against the hopes and efforts of right-wingers for the entirety of our lifetimes.

          Thank goodness for the culture war. May it continue for another half-century, at least. Or until the last of the clingers has been replaced.

          1. “The fun part has been achieving American progress against the hopes and efforts of right-wingers for the entirety of our lifetimes.”

            Here’s a list of some of those who have helped the bigoted asshole ‘progress’:
            1) Lincoln Stephens
            2) Walter Duranty
            3) Joseph Davies
            4) Julian Huxley
            5) Upton Sinclair
            6) John Dewey
            7) Jean Paul Sarte
            8) Henry Wallace
            9) Alger Hiss
            10) Malcom Cowley
            11) Edmund Wilson
            12) G. B. Shaw
            13) Lillian Hellman
            14) C. Wright Mills
            15-20)Donald MacLean, Kim Philby, and the remainder of the Cambridge useful idiots
            21) Harold Lasky
            22) Jacques Derrida
            23) Harrison Salisbury
            24) Norman Mailer
            25) Graham Greene
            26) Harry Bridges

            1. Still missing Noam Chomsky!

              Also, re: Duranty, you really need to change that entry to “The Entire Staff of the New York Times”.

            2. The list returns !!!!

              I almost died laughing the last time Sevo served up this half-baked historically-illiterate free-association menagerie of total randomness… John Dewey & Alger Hiss !!! Norman Mailer & Kim Philby !!! Henry Wallace and Upton Sinclair !!! God alone knows who fed poor gullible Sevo such a hilariously silly mess.

              If you took a total dunce – pounded him on the head with a mallet until totally concussed – then recorded the slurred words that dribbled from his mouth, you just might get a list this awesomely absurd. The only thing I’ve ever seen even close is the Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge, as translated from ancient Chinese by the German scholar Franz Kuhn. It divides all animals into 14 categories :

              (1) Those that belong to the emperor
              (2) Embalmed ones
              (3) Those that are trained
              (4) Suckling pigs
              (5) Mermaids (or Sirens)
              (6) Fabulous ones
              (7) Stray dogs
              (8) Those that are included in this classification
              (9) Those that tremble as if they were mad
              (10) Innumerable ones
              (11) Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
              (12) Et cetera
              (13) Those that have just broken the flower vase
              (14) Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

              1. Ad hominem is a Latin word that means “against the man.” As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent, to undermine him instead of his arguments.

                There are cases in which, whether consciously or unconsciously, people start to question the opponent or his personal associations, rather than evaluating the soundness and validity of the argument that he presents. These types of arguments are usually mistaken for personal insults, but they are somehow different in nature, and the distinction is very subtle.

                Arguers who are not familiar with the principles of making logical arguments commonly end up saying something that would draw the audience’s attention to the distasteful characteristics of the individual. Such people use this fallacy as a tool to deceive their audiences. Making such a blatant personal comment against somebody makes it hard for people to believe it isn’t true. Typically, even the arguer himself believes that such personal traits or circumstances are not enough to dispose of an individual’s opinion or argument. However, if looked at rationally, such arguments – even if true – never provide a valid reason to disregard someone’s criticism.

                1. Uh huh. But what I said was Sevo’s comical list is a ludicrous mish-mash held together by bubblegum and baling wire. We have a random grab-bag of names, united by nothing except that Sevo’s many handlers have individually said snide things about this person or that, at this time or that. Observing that the result is a joke isn’t “ad hominem” but – hey – why not try again? I’m sure you can find something equally irrelevant to cut&paste. Who knows? Another ten or twelve tries you might blunder into substance…..

          2. Arthur, if there’s gonna be a civil war, it’s going to be a short one.

            Soy Boys don’t fight well.

          3. Oh Arty, soon it will be a shooting war due to the increasingly violent and treasonous behavior of you and your friends.

            Feel free to choke our rivers with your dead.

            1. Open wider, hapless, vanquished clingers.

              And keep talking. That will keep your mouths open, which will make shoving additional progress down your throats easier and quicker.

              All-talk right-wingers are among my favorite faux libertarians.

              1. Progressives getting the full Kent State are among my favorite faux liberals.

    2. Reason seems to have given up on the idea if coequal branches.

      1. To you, all branches are equal, but some branches are more equal than others, so Trump can do whatever Trump wants.

        1. Like that time he assassinated an American citizen without trial. Or started an illegal war in the middle east without congressional approval. Or defied a court order and illegally restricted coastal oil exploration. Or trafficked guns to Mexico.

          1. All things I condemned at the time (or don’t recall knowing about either way for the oil exploration). What exactly is your argument, one president didn’t get impeached for his crimes therefore no president should ever get impeached?

        2. I got a phone and a pen.

      2. To be fair, the branches aren’t actually intended to be coequal. The Constitution is a plan for legislative supremacy. Congress can remove members of the other two branches, and not the other way around. The President can’t override the Senate’s refusal to confirm a nominee, and a super majority in Congress can impose laws on an unwilling President.

        1. Marbury vs Madison elevated SCOTUS to primacy.

  3. I don’t see how them voting to impeach Trump is increasingly likely. Maybe it will happen but it doesn’t seem any more likely today than it has been.

    If anything, her calling this vote is a sign of weakness. She is now being forced to call for a vote she was saying a week ago she didn’t need to have. It is also a vote that can be spun as meaningless by Democrats from Trump voting districts. They can all say “I just wanted an inquiry, I wasn’t voting for impeachment”.

    1. >>>didn’t need to have

      guessing she doesn’t *want* either

    2. OK, now I’m confused…is this an official vote to begin working towards an official vote before they send it on to the Senate, or is this the only official vote before it goes to the Senate…or are they saying they don’t even need an official vote but they’re having one just for the hell of it…before it goes to the Senate?
      It seems like this process should be written down somewhere…

      1. This is the official vote to allow conducting an inquiry, something they already claim to be doing. It appears that conducting an inquiry in secret that was never brought to a full vote of the House is so absurd that even the Democrats couldn’t maintain it any longer. So now they are having a vote and making their big “inquiry” official.

        As I say above, this is a sign of weakness not strength. They never wanted to have this vote and claimed they didn’t need to have it. They only are doing so now because even they couldn’t defend not having it.

        1. Ah, got it. So this is just a vote to formalize what they’re already doing. At some point the House will actually have to vote on articles of impeachment and then it dies in the Senate. Grazie!

          1. I still don’t think they will ever do it. This whole thing is just a charade to deflect attention from the Barr investigation and keep the base happy. It will never amount to anything.

            1. And take some thunder from killing al Baghdadi.

                1. I understand he’s an austere cleric, and father of three children.

                  1. Was.
                    He dead.

                    1. The liberal conspiracy theorists are already disagreeing with you based on Russian media saying they don’t think US killed him.

                  2. Ultimately, democrats are with the terrorists in what passes for their hearts.

                  3. He passed away recently.

                2. Shreek admits to being pig-ignorant. Film at 11.

                  1. That’s dog bites man quality, not news.

            2. “This whole thing is just a charade to deflect attention from the Barr investigation and keep the base happy.”

              I think this is correct. I mean, 2 months ago, every Very Serious Analyst in DC was explaining just how serious the Obstruction was, as laid out in the Mueller report. It was just plain obvious to these people that Trump was ordering obstruction, and therefore he could be impeached. Romney, Amash, and the usual Reason people were explaining how clearly these were impeachable offenses.

              Flash forward to today, and we have a fucking phone call to Ukraine that Trump published to the whole world. Reading it alone, there is absolutely no indication of pro quid pro. It is only when including the hearsay of a “whistleblower” that there is even an indication that something somewhat impeachable happened.

              If you were to go back in time and ask me, “Which is the impeachable offense: Credible information that a president was obstructing an investigation into his colluding with Russia, or hearsay that the president asked a country to investigate some actions of a potential rival” I would have chosen the former EVERY TIME. And yet no one talks about the Obstruction stuff any more. And they want me to take this Ukraine stuff seriously after they just dropped the Obstruction nonsense that they were telling me to take seriously? Uh, no thank you.

              1. Oceania is not at war with Eurasia, but with Eastasia.

              2. I suspect the dems tactic is to try wear people out much like a child will wear out a parent by throwing a fit until it gets what it wants.

        2. And so since it would now be official, Republican subpoenas would also have to be respected, and they wouldn’t be able to hide stuff behind locked doors, correct?

          1. I think so. And I think that is why they didn’t want to have this vote.

              1. And a thousand hive mind cries from the darkness

              2. Quite the retort there Pod.

              3. Shreek admits to being pig-ignorant. Film at 11.

          2. I think that very much depends on the details of the resolution, which I suspect will NOT give the minority much in the way of procedural powers, but will just explicitly establish that they get steamrollered.

          3. It depends on the rules that are in Thursday’s memo. This is still not an official impeachment, so they get to make up the rules. Doubt they give the GOP any power for subpoena. Remember, liberals are too fucking stupid and easily tricked.

        3. John : “As I say above, this is a sign of weakness not strength. They never wanted to have this vote and claimed they didn’t need to have it. They only are doing so now because even they couldn’t defend not having it”

          Pelosi always said there would be an inquiry vote, public hearings, and a release of all dispositions. I pointed that out last week while responding to snowflake whining by this very same John (along with Rufus The Monocled).

          So the record vote on an impeachment inquiry Pelosi promised to have all along is now a “sign of weakness” per our sad desperate commentator. Sounds like someone is flailing around for any kind of comfort he can find, poor thing. Maybe he should get a support puppy – or one of those warm fluffy blanket to hug.

          These are trying times for Trumpian bootlickers.

          1. Is this the tipping point, grb? Are you again going to wet your pants only to find out you lost one more time?
            Is the world unfair? Are you ALWAYS losing to someone smarter than you?
            Well, get used to it. As a fucking lefty ignoramus, it’s going to be that way until they plug you in the ground.
            And the rest of us find it amusing.

          2. Pelosi says a lot of shit. Since she is a pathological liar and borderline senile, a lot of the shit she says is wrong.

            1. She’s a notorious drunk too. Of Boehner proportions.

          3. So, hive mind, if they were always going to have a vote why did Pelosi say they were going to have a vote instead of just going ahead and having a vote?

            It seems have been making it up as they go along and are stuck actually having to have a vote now…

            1. “…..why did Pelosi say they were going to have a vote instead of just going ahead and having a vote?”

              OK, Nardz, I want you to pretend to be intelligent – just like I might pretend to be (say) a cowboy. I won’t ask you to pretend to be as smart as Nancy Pelosi, because even pretense can get you that far.

              Ready? You’re Speaker of the House, and intend to pursue impeachment. Unlike (say) the impeachment inquiries of Clinton and Nixon, there isn’t a massive trove of data from years of investigations by law enforcement and secret grand jury. So you’re going to have to start with closed-door dispositions to gather evidence, because that is never done publicly.

              So why wouldn’t you slowly build your case even before the first formal vote? Seems to me, that’s not only the logical choice but damn shrewd as well. And it worked like a charm, didn’t it? Day after day proof against Trump grows; day after day nation-wide support for impeachment grows. If Pelosi’s decisions weren’t so blazingly obvious I’d be tempted to call them genius.

              So, Nardz, try as hard as you can pretending to be smart, and then admit you agree. (if you can’t, try harder. Remember, there’s always hope)

              1. Unlike (say) the impeachment inquiries of Clinton and Nixon, there isn’t a massive trove of data from years of investigations by law enforcement and secret grand jury.

                Nixon wasn’t investigated for “years” by law enforcement and secret grand juries, you idiot. The break-in happened in 1972 and he resigned in 1974.

                Mueller had more time than that to find “Russian collusion” and came up with jack and shit.

                1. “Mueller had more time than that to find “Russian collusion” and came up with jack and shit.”

                  Really? Mueller’s term ran from May 17, 2017 to May 29, 2019. If he had more time than the federal investigation of Watergate, it was only by a hair. Perhaps you’re thinking of Ken Starr’s sleaze-show, which ran years longer. Hell, that piece of garbage named Brett Kavanaugh spent over three years on a cartoon “investigation” of Vince Foster’s suicide. That was probably the most grotesque partisan farce ever disguised as an independent counsel investigation, for which he was rewarded (for such contempt of the law) by a Supreme Court seat. Well, whores gotta whore.

                  Meanwhile, Mueller’s investigation was easily ten times greater in scope than all the dross Starr vacuumed-up, but Mueller finished in less than half the time. He never waged jihad thru the press, never leaked, and stayed tightly focused on his remit. He wouldn’t permit his investigation to become a political operation, right up to refusing to make politician’s arguments for them. Mueller vs Starr and Kavanaugh : The difference between ethical vs sleazy hack…..

          4. Pelosi spent a large chunk of her statement today saying she didn’t need the vote dumbass.

        4. they never wanted to have a vote but i think they realized how much bloviating they could get in TV time by making it public

      2. I don’t think they are about to send anything to the senate.

      3. “”is this an official vote to begin working towards an official vote before they send it on to the Senate, or is this the only official vote before it goes to the Senate…or are they saying they don’t even need an official vote but they’re having one just for the hell of it…before it goes to the Senate?””

        It’s what you get when you evidence is heard it from someone, who heard it from someone.

        1. TrickyVic (old school) : “It’s what you get when you evidence is heard it from someone, who heard it from someone”

          Plus an official transcript of the crime, ya know….. And the White House Chief of Staff confessing during an on-air news conference. And the criminal himself reenacting the crime on live TV (though changing the criminal venue to China).

          Meanwhile, one of the president’s biggest defenders – Andrew McCarthy – says Trump should go with an incompetence defense of “no harm, no foul”, since DJT somehow bungled extortion for private gain thru U.S. government favor. You’d think targeting a third-world leader frantic for U.S. support because his country is under invasion by Russia would prove a no-brainer, but not for Trump, Giuliani, Igor Fruman, Lev Parnas, and SOS Pompeo.

          Quote from “All the President’s Men” :

          “Forget the myths the media created about the White House. The truth is, these aren’t very bright guys, and things got out of hand.”

          1. Andrew McCarthy… I loved that guy in St Elmo’s Fire

          2. “Quote from “All the President’s Men” :
            “Forget the myths the media created about the White House. The truth is, these aren’t very bright guys, and things got out of hand.””

            Quoted from Sevo:
            Pod’s a fucking lefty ingnoramus.
            Mine’s more accurate and relevant.

          3. I’ve said it before, and likely will say it again: You’re demonstrating that Trump drove past the bank, and taking that as proof that he was the getaway driver in a bank robbery, without any proof the bank was robbed.

            The degree of confirmation bias involved in declaring that transcript convicts him is awe inspiring.

            1. Nah, confirmation bias is ignoring the segue from “look how good we’ve been to you” – to – I expect “reciprocal” behavior and want a “favor” – to – demanding Ukraine announce public investigations against Trump’s political enemies. Godfather-style code aside, that was blazingly obvious from the transcript alone, and has since been confirmed multiple times by multiple sources. It will be confirmed again today by Lt Col Alexander Vindman, a Purple Heart veteran of Iraq. He went to the NSC’s lead counsel to object to unethical conduct after hearing the July 25 call, which he sat in on.

              From his prepared statement : “I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine.”

              1. Hive mind has been told what its conclusions are

              2. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen,”

                It’s not only proper, we actually have a treaty with Ukraine on the topic.

                1. Really, Brett?

                  (1) Are you going to build a defense on claiming Donald John Trump gives a rat’s a** about corruption – in Ukraine. or anywhere else in the world, or in the U.S, or in his personal life. Good luck with that.

                  (2) Are you going to build a defense saying Trump’s quid pro quo demands in the transcript re CloudStrike or the Shokin firings are legitimate real investigation topics? Of course you can sell that in the cult, but try dealing with real facts in the real world.

                  (3) Are you going to build a defense saying it’s a coincidence the only damn corruption Trump cares about on all of Planet Earth just happens to concern Joe Biden, or wack-job conspiracy drivel about the Democratic Party?

                  (4) Are you going to build a defense claiming it’s normal for a “corruption inquiry” to be stage-managed and engineered by the presidents fixer – excuse, me – private attorney.

                  Do you even fool yourself with this nonsense? Everyone knows Trump was strong-arming Ukraine for personal gain. Probably even you know it. That you bother with pretense just shows you know how sleazy and wrong Trump was.

                  1. “Everyone knows”

                    Sure, just like “everyone knows” that the piss dossier was something more substantial than fan fiction.

                    1. Speaking of the Steele Dossier & piss, did you know Donald Trump directed his fixer Michael Cohen to contain damaging video tapes held by a Russian oligarch? The quote is from the Mueller report, page 239:

                      “On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know … .” Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe Pageant in Russia. Cohen said he spoke to Trump about the issue after receiving the texts from Rtskhiladze. Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but did not communicate that to Cohen”

                      For what Steele only claimed was raw intelligence, his dossier has held up pretty well. A campaign by the Russian Secret Service to help make Trump president? Steele was one hundred percent right. The theft of DNC emails? Steele was one hundred percent right. Trump’s secret business negotiations in Russia? Steele was one hundred percent right. Kickback payments to Paul Manafort from former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych? Steele was one hundred percent right. As for Carter Page, we only have a heavily-redacted memorandum from the House Intelligence Committee saying the Justice Department possessed information “obtained through multiple independent sources that corroborated Steele’s reporting” on Page.

                      One hundred percent again.

                      With raw intelligence, that’s an enviable track record. Then we add stuff off just the slightest bit : Michael Cohen didn’t take a secret trip to Prague to negotiate with the Russians, he took multiple secret trips to Moscow on the business deal Trump lied about repeatedly to the American people during the campaign. Manafort (apparently) didn’t hold campaign coordination sessions with Russian spies – instead he held campaign briefings with one man the CIA considered an agent for the Russians.

                      Not bad for raw intelligence, huh? That Steele was pretty good….

          4. “”Plus an official transcript of the crime, ya know””

            The actual transcript does not show a crime. People are inferring that it does.

        2. It’s a vote to decide how they’re going to decide when to decide whether to vote to impeach the President.

    3. You don’t “need” to give a screaming child whatever they’re screaming for, but sometimes if it will shut them up, take the few seconds to get up and do it if it’s really not a problem.

      1. Hive mind speaking to a mirror

    4. No one is being ¨forced¨ to call for a vote on anything. This means only that there is one less thing for Republicans to kvetch about.

  4. And with her latest act of treason complete, she has guaranteed the president’s reelection.

  5. “To be very clear, this is not a vote to impeach Trump. It is a vote to formalize that Trump is being investigated for possible impeachment. ”

    That’s hilarious. so bold. so brave. so much resisting.

    1. Trump’s super power really is making his enemies go insane.

      1. It really is. I don’t find a lot to like about Trump, but that at least is interesting and very telling.
        If it wasn’t so aggravating and frustrating that all these people are losing their damn minds, it would be one of the funniest things ever. But unfortunately you have to talk to those people sometimes.

        1. I understand why people would not like Trump. But the histrionics and the lunacy amazes me. My God, he has been in office for nearly three years now. Is anything really that different than it was before he took office? If there is, I don’t see it. No one is being locked up in camps. The country isn’t falling apart. I just wish these people would calm the fuck down. If you don’t like Trump, don’t vote him in 2020. That is how this is supposed to work.

          1. The economy is booming.

            Or didn’t you notice?

            1. The economy is the prime indicator of the election, and hence the Donkey spasms.

            2. There is that. Honestly, most of these idiots either deny that or see it as a bad thing.

          2. Like Bush never did anything really out of the norms of American political history (including Iraq), Trump has done exactly nothing out of the norms.

            In both cases, the left reacted as if they were both unique in their alleged ‘criminality’. I thought under Bush they were insane, but this….this is stratospheric in its stupidity under Trump.

            Same stupid behaviour found its way into Canadian politics. People started to talk about Harper as if he ate babies for breakfast and the Liberals could do no wrong and if they did it’s because they had to – for the greater good and muh democracy.

            It was during the Bush years and Chretien government in Canada I found myself quietly walking backwards out of the room filled with liberals and progressives. They were just mean, disingenuous assholes who didn’t argue in good faith.

            Much like the left-wing clowns here. You know?

          3. He has said bad things John. What don’t you get?!?

          4. Things are very different for Lefties, John.

            Lefties cannot just say you’re racist and you drop to your knees to beg for forgiveness.

            Lefties are losing their jobs as bureaucrats because taxpayers are not just throwing money at political hacks doing the revolving door paydays anymore.

            Lefties are not able to convince most of America via Propaganda anymore.

            John, this is end times for Lefties. They were convinced that Hillary would win by a landslide and subsequent government elections would be a formality. Look back at Hicklib, Tony, pedophile man, and other Lefty posts. They had won the culture war.

            Trump’s election and reelection means that they lost the culture war. Maybe they won some culture battles but lost the war.

          5. Where have you been? How are things the same?

            Women are forced to wear these long robes with high collar side flaps wherever they go, and they are made to have babies with the husbands of other women! Also, actors are being attacked in downtown Chicago on very cold nights and being made to wear nooses simply because they are black or gay or both!

            If that’s not enough to make you realize that General Cheeto is so much worse than his predecessors with the Patriot Act, domestic spying, etc., then you must be blind.

          6. It’s amusing to see you all normalizing the changes to the status quo that Trump has wrought.

            It wasn’t that long ago that even Republicans were not overtly hostile to immigration. What changed

            Reagan: America is a shining city on a hill, and it’s a great place where anyone from anywhere can come and become an American.

            Trump: America is for Americans only, all you other shithole people can go back to where you came from.

            Huh.

            1. Yeah, if it’s one thing libertarians love, it’s the status quo.

            2. Bush got amnesty shoved up his ass by his base in 2006 precisely because they remembered the lies and broken promises of the Reagan amnesty in 1986. Open borders is not a GOP position and never has been.

              Harry Reid introduced a bill to end birthright citizenship in 1993. Obama amnestied thousands of illegal aliens in violation of a court order. It’s amusing to see your normalizing the changes to the status quo that Obama has wrought. Everyone knows that political party positions are fixed.

            3. “It wasn’t that long ago that even Republicans were not overtly hostile to immigration. What changed”

              3-4 decades of unchecked illegal immigration in the tens of millions

      2. Short trip. Really, no trip at all, his super power isn’t making his enemies “go” insane, it’s just goading them into revealing to everybody that they were already insane.

        1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. “The process is the punishment.”

    3. Just spit-balling here, but what if the dems lose the vote? Do they have to stop the investigation altogether, or do they just continue their secret, closed door version?

      1. Not likely, but that would be funny.

        1. As funny as 60,000 people chanting “lock him up?”

          1. “As funny as 60,000 people chanting “lock him up?””

            When you’ve got the asshole bigot and the swamp-critters shitting their pants, you’re doing something right.

          2. By Washington DC fans. It’s incredible! Like the Raiders being booed in Denver! Most amazing thing I ever saw! Dumbass.

          3. In D.C.? Yes. Poor public school system. Something you know well.

          4. So? That just identifies 60,000 progtard traitors that need to go.

            1. That’s big talk for a guy who has spent his entire life getting kicked around by his betters in the culture war . . . and whose failure will end with replacement.

    4. Not as hilarious as Trump’s ass in tennis clothes.

      1. That time away did not sharpen your wit.

        1. But he really is a bloated fat fuck.

          1. A 72 year old man doesn’t have a chiseled physique with 9% body fat? No way!

            Goddamn, you are one stupid faggot, Tony. Did licking up all those loads off the floor of the bathhouse further damage your stunted brain?

            1. Meanwhile Trump can out campaign Bernie “heart attack” Sanders.

          2. Let me tell you a little secret about men, in particular heterosexual men: when they are worth upwards of a few hundred million dollars, their physique ceases to matter to the opposite sex.

            1. Do you think I consider that a valid excuse?

          3. When was the last time he had a seizure and had to be carried into a van by the secret service?

  6. Depending on your political frame of mind as to whether it is proper or not, this bullshitting around has certainly put the Trump agenda on hold. Nothing he proposes can get done with this House fixation on impeachment. Maybe as a break from their endless whining, the Republicans should realize it didn’t have to be if they had paid more attention to the 2018 elections and if Trump hadn’t acted like a middle school asshole on Twitter every day right from the beginning (e.g. the President going after Rosie; the president worrying about the size of his inauguration crowd.)

    1. Trump continues to fill the courts and repeal regulations at a breakneck pace. So, it is hard to say it has put his agenda entirely on hold. It has prevented him from rolling all before him. But it hasn’t prevented him from accomplishing more than any Republican President since Reagan.

    2. And poll after poll says this isn’t playing well in the Midwest or anywhere outside of the Democratic base. Much like it did for Obama, losing the House is probably going to help Trump get elected. All taking the House did was raise expectations of Democratic voters with no hope of them being fulfilled. Meanwhile, the impeachment obsessions has done nothing but motivate Republican voters.

      1. Speaking of not playing well in the midwest, Mason Rudolph throws nothing but ducks

    3. Trump mainly got elected to fill judgeships; everything else is gravy.

      1. Enlargement of the Supreme Court (and perhaps a couple of circuit courts) could be the cherry on which clingers choke.

    4. Yes, because if Trump would only behave like an obsequious worm the Democrats in the house would be working side-by-side with him on a daily basis. Just like they did with Bush.

  7. Pelosi (D–Calif.) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter today (that also functions as a press release)

    Wait. Nowadays it’s not *really* official unless she *tweeted* it out, right? RIGHT?!

  8. It’d be a hoot if the ‘nays’ have it.

    1. I mean, that could be a possibility, right? I’d imagine at least a few democrat reps are in more conservative areas, and might now want to piss off the base.

      1. Pelosi is surely smart enough to only call for a vote she knows she can win. But if they lost the vote, that would be the funniest thing ever. They would be fucked.

        1. Republicans are motivated as hell already, but if they lost the vote the progs would eat their own politicians alive, it definitely would be funny as hell.

      2. It is possible but I don’t think it is likely. Simply because those blue reps can save face with their red voters by saying something like: “I only voted to make the impeachment inquiry official to stop the closed-door meetings in smoke-filled rooms.”

    2. So I googled it, and while it’s obviously a few weeks out of date, this is what I got:

      “As of September 24, 2019, the on-record support in the House of Representatives for launching an impeachment inquiry is 207 Democrats and one independent (out of a total of 435 representatives).”

  9. Meanwhile, deep within her lair in Chappaqua, Hillary Clinton plans her presidential campaign. As a Republican.

    1. Trump loses Pence and goes with the Trump Hillary unity ticket. I don’t think we are worthy of living in a universe where something that delicious would occur.

      1. I was thinking more along the lines of Trump taking his ball and going home. Hillary would never accept a VP slot.

        Hillary isn’t about the Demcrats. Hillary is about Hillary.

        1. Hillary is old and desperate enough who knows what she might do. And Trump is not going home. He wants to serve out two terms out of spite if nothing else.

          1. “who knows what she might do”
            Probably correct. Who knows tragedy could befall the President and elevate her from VP? Of course, it isn’t quite as easy to off the President and make it look like a street mugging or that he decided to be a suicide while jogging one night in the park.

            1. “Out, damn spot! Out!”

            2. Or commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head…twice.

          2. Even she doesn’t know what she might do at this point. I get the impression that she really is starting to lose it.

            1. Uh huh. Read the score or so comments immediately above yours. The only one “starting to lose it” is Trump’s supporters. They used to make at least a modicum of sense, even while dousing everyone in range with their spittle-spraying rage.

              But now their mood swings have grown more erratic; the disconnect from reality evermore stark; the retreat into obvious fantasy an almost continuous state. Yet we’re still early in the process of documenting Trump’s high crimes & misdemeanors. What will they do when everything is spelled out plain & clear?

              1. But now their mood swings have grown more erratic; the disconnect from reality evermore stark; the retreat into obvious fantasy an almost continuous state.

                But enough about 85 IQ hicklibs projecting like a 24-screen movie theater.

              2. Yea, increasingly unhinged hive mind is the sane one!

              3. Uh huh. You only have to find one, first, cupcake.

              4. grb
                October.28.2019 at 7:57 pm
                “…They used to make at least a modicum of sense, even while dousing everyone in range with their spittle-spraying rage….”

                This is called “projection”, except that neither grb nor the other TDS victims ever made a modicum of sense.

              5. Yet we’re still early in the process of documenting Trump’s high crimes & misdemeanors.

                Trump has been investigated for impeachment for more than three years and had his most private conversations spied on and leaked. If there were any high crimes and misdemeanors, or even the usual Washington corruption, the FBI, the CIA, and Congress would have found them by now.

                I mean, in contrast to Trump, it took just a little digging by journalists to find felonies by Hillary and massive corruption by the Bidens and the Obama administration.

              6. “Yet we’re still early in the process of documenting Trump’s high crimes & misdemeanors. What will they do when everything is spelled out plain & clear?

                Isn’t this what the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 3 years? Seems like they’re not doing a very good job…

              7. “”The only one “starting to lose it” is Trump’s supporters. “”

                Yet you accuse other people of willful ignorance.

                The left started losing it the day Hillary lost the election.

          3. Trump canceled his previous presidential campaigns before the election.

            Trump KNOWS he will be reelected, so of course he wont voluntarily pass on reelection.

        2. True, but at this point she might take what she can get. Being the first female VP in history would be better than…whatever she is now. And she’d only be one heartbeat away from the presidency…

          1. Being the first female VP in history would be better than…whatever she is now.

            Que Sarah Palin whining about how the Russians colluded to keep her down…

        3. I mean, she might accept it if there was a chance of some poor bastard coming down with a case of suicide…

  10. Popcorn! Get your unsalted, no-fat popcorn here!

    1. “” Get your unsalted, no-fat popcorn here!”‘

      Bloomberg brand?

  11. Looks like Trump won this fight.

    1. That must be the reason he’s tweeting frantically about how he doesn’t even know the name of the latest witness, and how that person being on the call about “Ukrain” is ‘impossible, and how that the person is disqualified for being a ‘never Trumper.’

  12. Speaker Pelosi has shown herself to be a pretty good tactician and I suspect she did this because she is ready to rollout the impeachment case. We have never seen Trump or the Republicans force her hand before so I don’t think time is different.

    1. Didn’t really have much of a choice after Trump did a victory lap over Baghdadi’s piss-stained corpse.

      1. And with pending prosecutions of multiple figures involved in the previous “investigations” of Trump, for perjury and fraudulently obtaining FISA warrants. I hear McCabe has already been recommended for charges.

        1. The problem here is that the information uncovered in the FISA warrants is still out there. We will still know that President Trump’s people were talking to the Russians. We will still know the Russian were trying to influence the elections. We will still know that the President for some reason always defers to the Russian leader. The best an investigation can do is a technical acquittal. Like yes we know your guilty, we just can not prove it.

          1. What we also know is that Mueller couldn’t get anyone convicted for anything other than unrelated process crimes.

            1. I think Mueller handed off most of the prosecutions. Many of these will remain regardless of the status of the FISA warrants because they are based on other information.

              1. Which doesn’t have anything to do with actual collusion.

                1. Collusions not a crime. If you read Prosecutor Mueller’s report you see extensive contacts between the Trump Campaign and Russian agents. The report notes that these contacts did not rise to the level of conspiracy, which is a crime.

          2. The walls are closing in! It’s the beginning of the end!

    2. When Trump gets more EV in 2018 than 2016, you will likely spend days in hiding to do your crying.

      1. Was there a Presidential election in 2018? I must have missed it.

    3. If you’re a “pretty good tactician”, you should really be able to point to some success resulting from your tactics. So what has Pelosi actually accomplished? The way it looks so far is that the Democratic party is getting completely out of control, she destroyed the moderate presidential frontrunner by highlighting his corruption, and she has helped Trump to a massive haul in campaign contributions.

  13. Demorats are breathtaking in their TDS. Do they really want to set such precedences because Orange Man Bad? If they’re that principled they’d calculate he’s not worth it and the people of the United States and its political integrity matter more in the long run.

    Alas, it’s not about principles now is it?

    1. Trump tried to rig the fucking election. I realize you can hardly notice it but if you were a Democrat I assure you that you’d take notice of this scheme to have Zelensky read some fucking script on CNN announcing Trump’s chief political rival was under criminal investigation for some fever swamp nonsense. I think you would notice Giuliana was in league with Russian mafia types. I seriously hope you’re just a fucking liar and don’t actually believe Trump isn’t a criminal but I’m afraid you really cant see it.

      1. As it’s been said many times, many ways about you. You’re tiresome, ill-informed and illiberal.

        First of all, ZERO evidence. That people still think about Russian collusion was real is shocking. You have to be one useless idiot – not useful but useless.

        Second, on that remark about Giuliani. Right. Here’s a guy who took on the ITALIAN mafia (where it’s rumoured they planned to whack him but voted against it) in an effort to clean up NYC and didn’t join them but you expect people to believe – Giuliani who is of Italian stock – joined the Russian mafia? Are you on crack?

        I know progressives are unprincipled morons who engage in sophistry and suck government cock but for the love of God…you’re making me go full John here.

        And that’s not my style.

        That’s how idiotic you sound.

      2. Pod
        October.28.2019 at 8:34 pm
        “Trump tried to rig the fucking election….”

        You’re stooopid and you’re funny.

        1. He was wearing his Debbie Blabbermouth Schulz costume.

      3. Pod are you really this stupid and worthless? Or are you another parody accounts?

        1. Its a Tide Pod. Put in the washer and forget.

          Who has serious conversations with tide pods except Gen Z kids and reason staffsocks.

        2. It’s one of shreek’s many socks.

      4. The Bidens were clearly massively corrupt, as were several other members of the Obama administration. You have to be utterly ignorant of Washington not to see that.

        As for Trump being a criminal, that requires committing a crime. I yet have to see what crime Trump is supposed to have violated. Even if Trump had had Zelensky to read a script that Biden was under investigation, which law would that have violated? (Of course, Trump neither did that nor did he attempt to do that.)

      5. If Trump did try to rig the election; he must have went to the Ocassio-Cortez school of election rigging.

        Seriously though. Do you really think a person of Trumps means is going to ask the government of a 3rd rate Eastern European country to find dirt on a political rival? Or would he just hire about a dozen of the best Magnum P.I. types that he could find to do it?

    2. Yes, Trump is the principled one.

      Libertarians are never going to get anywhere if they can’t stop watching FOX News. Poke your stupid head into reality once in a while. It’s good for you.

      1. Conservatives (by their nature) and libertarians aren’t useful idiots.

        1. No they are not on whole, but a number of them lining up to support a President who may speaks to their concerns but does little to address the concerns. I think the real conservatives and libertarians are mostly in the group labeled “Never Trumpers”. Most of these have been banished from Fox TV.

          1. Your huge blind spot is what drives your delusion —
            Trump ejects from treaties that subsidizes foreign aid/merchandise.
            Even this whole “impeachment” case is about ejecting from such.
            Trump De-Regulates.
            Trump Cut Taxes.
            Trump ended ISIS.
            Trump ended N.K. nuclear arms.
            Trump increased revenue.

            ………… “little to address concerns” …………… ??? What are those concerns? The concern to dismantle the USA and transform it into a communist nation (the Obama path)?

            1. Sorry but your reading from the talking points and not the actual record. Really “ended N.K. nuclear arms”! Have you read a newspaper lately?

      2. No, no, it’s totally principled to beg the Electoral College to vote unfaithfully, declare Resistance to the duly elected POTUS, use the CIA to setup people in order to start a sham investigation, and then to use impeachment over legal actions to attempt to sway an election.

      3. Tony, you’re obsessed with Fox News. I’ll bet you watch constantly and masturbate to Tucker Carlson.

  14. Nancy picked up a suicide vest on her recent Mideast trip and is trying it out for size.

  15. “Pelosi makes it clear that such a vote is not required”

    Pelosi asserted that such a vote is not required. But if she were really confident of that, she wouldn’t be holding one.

    This is a defeat, albeit a minor one. It puts a number of Democratic House members who were elected from districts Trump carried in a bad position, she wouldn’t be doing that if she had any choice.

    1. Note that she did not plan for a vote until a Federal Judge had agreed with her contention that a vote was unnecessary. This vote is coming because Speaker Pelosi has what she needs to roll out impeachment.

      1. No, she had Trump being a Republican all along. And that’s all she really needed.

        Seriously, you can look at the polling, as early as 4 weeks after Trump’s inauguration a solid 58% of Democrats favored him being impeached, even if no impeachable offense could be identified. By May it was into the 70’s.

        They spent 3 years looking for a plausible excuse for impeaching him, and now that the campaign season is approaching, and there are indictments about to come out in the FISA abuse investigation, they’ve given up on finding a plausible excuse, and just going with what they have.

        1. Yes and at the end of his term over 70% of Republicans were not sure that President Obama was born in the US. Sorry but in the modern era massive opposition to the President of the other party is stacked in the deck. Speaker Pelosi was not going to be driven by that nonsense. She moving because she is ready.

    1. Nice one, Paul. I listened to 2 seconds and I am cracking up.

    2. Totes Tony.

      As an aside, I like Dore (too bad he spat at someone. For me, that’s low class coward bull shit) but it’s a shame he’s a progressive.

    3. That does sound like me.

      1. It’s the generic East Coast homosexual voice.

      2. I hope you laughed. That was some seriously funny shit.

  16. “Pelosi makes it clear that such a vote is not required, and previous impeachment inquiries often have not had such votes.”

    Isn’t it great when Pelosi makes things clear?

    If she pronounced the existence of a perpetual motion machine, would it suddenly spring into being?

    Which previous impeachment inquiry didn’t have a vote, and since there were only three initiated against presidents, how can they possibly not have such votes “often”?

    If it happened once, that isn’t “often”.

    Three out of three would be “always” rather than “often”.

    Does “often” mean two out of three?

    Which two?

    Sorry, but I’m not sorry Pelosi making things clear isn’t enough for me.

  17. Whatever TV station wife has on is framing this as a ‘vote on impeachment’ when it is actually a vote to move the star-chamber efforts out from behind closed doors.
    But never let facts get in the way of TDS.

    1. Or just the fact that reporters are pretty stupid, and local reporters don’t understand the nuances. Is it local news?

      1. Don’t really know.
        She watches the news and I catch parts of it. This part struck me as really stupid and you could well be right.
        Out local news teams:
        https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=wee+too+low+sum+ting+wong&view=detail&mid=11D9CAEA2C0E845E83F611D9CAEA2C0E845E83F6&FORM=VIRE

  18. Pelosi has been reluctant to call a vote because she’s afraid it will cost the Democrats the House. The reason Pelosi feels compelled to call a vote is because House Democrats from deep blue districts are a threat to replace her as Speaker if she’s seen as the reason Trump isn’t impeached and wins somehow reelection. She’s between a rock and a hard place.

    To illustrate the point, here’s an interesting read of where the House races are for 2020.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_kyle_kondik/house_2020_the_new_crossover_districts

    The first table lists all the Republicans who are running in districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

    There are three of them.

    The second table lists all the Democrats who are running in districts that voted for President Trump in 2016.

    There are 31 of them. That’s a big disadvantage.

    The problem for these 31 Democrats isn’t just that they risk enraging Trump voters by voting to impeach Trump and overturn a majority of their own district’s votes in 2016. The other problem is that if they vote against impeaching Trump, it will enrage the hardcore Democrats in their district for giving Trump a pass. No, angry Democrat voters aren’t likely to vote for Republicans to express their outrage, but they’re likely to stay home and not vote–and the result of that is likely to be a loss for the Democrat anyway.

    Those Democrats don’t want to go on the record voting for or against impeaching Donald Trump, but they’re about to have no choice–and it’s hilarious. Nancy is driving them headlong to their death, and there’s no way to slow down.

    *flute solo*

    1. And according to Tony, he will admit Obama was shitty if Trump wins the popular vote.

      This is definitely an election 2020 must track.

      As with pedo SPB, who never paid his bet, Tony wont follow thru either.

    2. “The first table lists all the Republicans who are running in districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

      There are three of them.”

      I’d actually be happier if there were more of them; This is an indication that the Republicans aren’t even trying to advance into hostile territory.

      1. That’s like saying rather than the Normandy coast, the 101st should have dropped straight into Berlin.

    3. Ken…I look at this with a somewhat different lens. The vote must be called, and we need to get on with this. Our country is getting torn apart. We cannot start fixing this until the worst is over with.

      Memo to Speaker Pelosi: Call the vote.

      1. Yes, it will hurt many Donkeys.

  19. elosi includes the short summary of the resolution in the letter ?

  20. Madness & Mayhem

    Vote on impeachment? No vote on impeachment? An affirmative vote only will prolong the current lunacy over Ukraine.

    A deeper, more sinister plot is afoot. A conspiracy? Yes. Among whom? The disestablishmentarians of The Radical Left and their supporters who provide approval for various reasons.

    What to do? Gain knowledge. Knowledge leads to understanding. Understanding leads to wisdom.

    What kind of knowledge? Knowledge, for example, about the historical context leading to the madness of the moment, impeachment.

    https://www.nationonfire.com/impeachment-fundamentals/ .

  21. So they have finally made up enough stuff behind closed doors that they can pretend was testimony, and now want to take the show on the road?
    I kind of wish the Senate would just go ahead and vote not guilty and be done with it all.

  22. Existing House rules make it clear that each and every Representative has access to all documents and records involving an impeachment.

    Since this isn’t an actual impeachment (yet) the Democrats have been denying access to Republicans. Which got us the ‘storming’ (more like casually entering and sitting down) of the SCIF.

    It would appear the polling on that episode did not match the hyperbolic freak out from the media.

    This vote is either a mechanism for Pelosi to climb down – via swing state (d) Reps voting impeachment down, or a means to continue the charade while changing the rules to better suit their star chamber methods.

  23. I’d bet money the vote won’t happen. Pelosi doesn’t want her “moderate” dems exposed to this vote; many of them are skating on thin ice at home and voting for impeachment is a ticket to unemployment.

    I think a reason to delay the vote will come up and Pelosi will lunge for it like a drowning swimmer reaching for a life preserver.

    1. Hoyer won’t commit to a Thursday vote on this “We’ll keep doing what we’ve been doing” thing.

  24. TLDR- They don’t need to but the Republicans are using any excuse to defy legal subpoenas and acting like clowns so we’ll do this pointless resolution.

    They know they can’t argue substance so they argue process. Fine, fuck em.

    1. What subpoena are you referring to?

      Be specific.

      Otherwise accept that you are full of shit.

  25. Democrats could have an actual impeachment vote tomorrow if they wanted to. This is clearly election year politicking… a little early.

  26. “… Charles Kupperman blew off a congressional subpoena and did not appear as ordered…”

    It wasn’t a subpoena, as there is no official impeachment investigation, it was a request for his presence with no legal penalty for refusal. And, even this expected vote is not to initiate an official investigation, it is to recognize the ongoing witch hunt. If passed I’m still not sure if they will be able to issue official subpoenas or only more unenforceable and irrelevant “requests for your presence”.

  27. Still think there must be something huge in “Ukraine” or something. Is that where the underground DNC human manipulation facility is or what?

    1. If the DNC has a PSYOP operation in Ukraine against the USA can all DNC politicians be put on trial for treason?

Please to post comments