Oh, so there's not an impeachment inquiry

[atlkvb]

LOL!

Where's your rebuttal to my outlining of the Democrat quagmire of failure? You've lost already and you don't even see it.

House Democrats WILL NOT vote to impeach a Republican President with no prospect of winning Republican Senate votes. No House Republican will vote to impeach a Republican President without Republican input during House committee discovery of articles to impeach. No Republican Senate will consider convicting a Republican President if the case against him isn't supported by House Republicans.

Period.

Prove me wrong or you can just leave the board now ya know?

 

[WVU80ate]

It’s counsel, not council, you f’ucking moron.

We already have a bet. Don’t try to back out now. It is on whether or not the POTUS is impeached.

I’m not arguing with your stupid, f’ucking, dumb, ignorant ass about the impeachment process because I have already explained it to you and your ignorant f’ucking lard ass won’t listen.

Yippee, the House of dimwits are gonna “git him” as Maxine Waters proclaimed. Too stupid to realize the Senate is controlled by Republicans who will vote it down. And that’s assuming the House could operate a kangaroo court and actually impeach him without a crime.

 

[Gunny46]

Hey @Gunny46 , you have a pretty sharp political mind, what do you think House Dems will do if they are presented with recommendations from Schiff's farse committee to impeach Trump and the IG's report shows major Obama DOJ abuse relating to securing those FISA warrants to spy on Trump?

I'm talking gross violations of FISA Law? Do they still take an impeachment vote? Or start trying to defend their party's leadership under Obama as a bunch of corrupt traitors?

About 5 minutes after it's released and it will backfire badly.

 

[atlkvb]

I’m not arguing with your stupid, f’ucking, dumb, ignorant ass about the impeachment process because I have already explained it to you and your ignorant f’ucking lard ass won’t listen.

This is you pretending like you have some intellectual or factual rebuttal to my complete evisceration of your entire argument, and the curse words reveal how intellectually vaporized I've left you or they're just a substitute for your ignorance.

 

[countryroads89]

Just a reminder.

If the President is not impeached, I will self ban from this forum for one year.

If the President is impeached, you, atlkvb, will self ban from this forum for one year.

The only deal breaker is if the President resigns.

Great...you're on! kay:

 

[atlkvb]

Just a reminder.

As I said country, your "line of demarcation" comes when/if Pelosi schedules a floor vote on the rules to hear committee recommendations. I'm not sure it ever gets that far, but depending on what they vote out of committee (if they ever do), she better make sure then Republicans are more included than Schiff is including them now in his sham operation; otherwise there won't be any impeachment vote and you're gonna be pissed!

You'll know then you're history on here. Why would Pelosi all of a sudden start playing nice with Republicans?

You're right atl, I'm NOT playing nice, I hate Trump! F' him!

Yeah Nancy, but your party ain't got sh*t on him and House Republicans will remind you of that on a rules floor vote.

 

[atlkvb]

About 5 minutes after it's released and it will backfire badly.

Not sure they would be dumb enough to go through with an impeachment vote if the IG report says Dems broke the Law, but they're desperate and I'd suppose anything would be possible at that point. No one would take it seriously. It would be seen as just a diversion, which would further destroy whatever little political credibility they are counting on to make their impeachment case valid.

 

[Gunny46]

Not sure they would be dumb enough to go through with an impeachment vote if the IG report says Dems broke the Law, but they're desperate and I'd suppose anything would be possible at that point. No one would take it seriously. It would be seen as just a diversion, which would further destroy whatever little political credibility they are counting on to make their impeachment case valid.

Too busy to watch the Democrat Debates huh ? :wink:

 

[wvu2007]

Ole Nancy is skull f ucking countryroads89.

 

[countryroads89]

Ole Nancy is skull f ucking countryroads89.

 

[wvu2007]

No not trump, she's doing that to you right now. You are letting her like you always do.

 

[atlkvb]

Too busy to watch the Democrat Debates huh ? :wink:

Didn't watch 'em. There's being dumb and then there's being totally mind controlled & numb Gunny. I'm keeping what little sanity I still have dealing with Leftists.

 

[atlkvb]

About 5 minutes after it's released and it will backfire badly.

The question Gunny is are Democrats more interested in suicide taking an impeachment vote if the IG nails them for FISA abuse, or is their hatred for Trump so much that they'll go on ahead and vote to impeach him despite Republican Senate opposition or being nailed as traitors thus sealing their sure defeat in 2020 by an electoral landslide?

They'll lose either way, but I'm trying to decide which is the lesser of two evils for them?

 

[dave]

LOL!

I know. You have no response to facts ever.

 

[atlkvb]

I know. You have no response to facts ever.

country typically just leaves a thread after getting exposed. Remember the tax deduction debate? "collusion" confusion? And a few others that slip my mind when I got put on "ignore" after totally emasculating country's weak and typically inaccurate arguments. Now this impeachment "inquiry", where country refuses to answer even the most basic question about it to substantiate the most critical argument country is making for it.

 

[atlkvb]

Excellent article here from the B.B.C on why Democrats WON'T...likely take a vote to impeach Trump. (recommended)

A few excerpts:

"Before the House takes the momentous step toward impeachment of an American President, all of its members should be on record with that consequential action. Most importantly, it gives clarity to a federal court in balancing congressional demands against executive privilege."

...more

The House speaker might be trying to protect the handful of holdout Democrats or view the move as a waste of time. She might also be afraid that a House vote would encourage Republicans to press for the kinds of investigatory powers that congressional minority parties had in past impeachment proceedings.

The last thing Democrats want is congressional Republicans subpoenaing Joe or Hunter Biden in an attempt to shift the focus away from Donald Trump

....finally

In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the president without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step."

Nancy has neither the historical, legal, or political basis of support right now to call for an impeachment vote. Until or unless she has all three firmly under a stool to stand on, there won't be any impeachment vote.

Full article

B.B.C. News Wednesday October 16, 2019

Why won't Democrats vote to authorize impeachment?


www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50061727

 

[atlkvb]

@countryroads89 you wouldn't answer my questions earlier in the thread (post 189) about this summary report YOU claimed will reveal all of the Democrat fact finding from this so called "inquiry" and that's fine. But I linked an article above (post 216) which very accurately laid out why Nancy hasn't yet taken a vote to open this process. YOU said she didn't have to, but I said in order to make this work politically she MUST.

They don't have to vote to begin the inquiry. It has already began, LOL! They have been questioning witnesses and issuing subpoenas. LOL!

So then why can't you answer my question in post 189? What part of this inquiry will include Republican's rebuttals or the President's defense answering to the specific charges which are ostensibly being formed as articles? You didn't answer because there IS NO Republican input, and there is no case Schiff is gathering evidence on.

Then you said this:

They have the votes already to impeach the dumb son-of-a-bitch. They are completing the process and interviewing people to strengthen the case.

Well if that's true, there is no reason for Nancy NOT to call a formal vote! That in fact strengthens her case.

• She could also take a whip count to line her caucus numbers up and show Republicans how strong support for the case is.
• She could order Schiff to open the inquiry to the public so everyone can hear the evidence which ironically also would further strengthen the case
• She could also schedule a House rules committee vote to show resolve to carry through on Intelligence recommendations again to show strength for the case.
• She could also give Schiff a date certain to end his inquiry, and clear the House docket for a Full floor vote once Intel issues its findings to strengthen resolve.
• She could do all of that right now, and include Republicans in the process to make sure once the articles are sent to the Senate, the case for conviction is strong & solid.

She's done none of that. She won't. She can't. She doesn't have the votes in her own party, she doesn't have the Republican's input, she doesn't have a case, she can't take a vote and she won't take a vote because she can't commit political suicide for her party.

Bottom line country...Democrats want power. Since they can't beat Trump at the polls or with better ideas, they think this sham (impeachment inquiry) gets him out of office. They are wrong. YOU are wrong. They will lose & you will too.

 

[atlkvb]

Hey @countryroads89 how many vile and profane descriptions can you post to rebutt what I laid out for you in post 217?

'Cmon country, let me hear your disgustingly loquacious elegance laced with slime that correctly and factually places my opinion on Nancy and the hapless Democrats into the crapper?

I know you can do it 'ya sewer sleuth.

 

[atlkvb]

Hey @countryroads89 does your refusal to rebut my post in #217 or answer my questions to you in post #189 or in post #201 mean you admit you've been defeated?

Or are you just trying not to embarrass yourself? Where's your invective factually refuting the political or procedural scenarios I've laid out in those posts indicating why Democrats won't vote to impeach this President?

You realize if my scenarios are correct, you've lost the bet? So, refute what I've said and prove now how you've won it?

Profane responses are allowed since that's all you can say without hard facts to rebut me.

So when can I expect your departure from this forum as surely as I've muted your counter arguments to this impeachment scam?

Today would be fine. If I'm wrong, refute my arguments. If you can't, leave because you are then admitting I've won..

 

[atlkvb]

So when can I expect your departure from this forum as surely as I've muted your counter arguments to this impeachment scam?

Hey @countryroads89 , now we hear the Intelligence Committee isn't trying to develop articles of impeachment on the Ukraine phone call anymore. Yesterday YOU said Pelosi already had enough votes to impeach on that alone. Correct?

What happened?

Now, today's "inquiry" is over Trump's decision to pull our troops back from the Turkish/Syrian border dispute to help Putin. Or Trump holding the G7 Summit at his Doral resort.

What will the impeachment "inquiry" focus on next week country? Trump's diaherrea? Surely you'll be lapping that up too since it's part of your normal diet.

You can leave this forum anytime you want since there isn't going to be any impeachment vote.

 

[Brushy Bill]

 

[countryroads89]

Bump.

Post 205.

 

[wvu2007]

Bump.

Post 205.

You scared lol!

 

[Gunny46]

Bump.

Post 205.