What is Nancy up to?

nancy is smart

the longer Trump fumes and frets the more likely he'll do stupid cuntery

Out of all of the sources you could've chosen, why in the hell would your stupid fucking ass choose the DAILY WIRE?

And even the picture they chose shows what petty, worthless propagandist cunts they are.

She has that motherfucker right where she wants him. She'll send it to the Senate when she is damn good and ready.

When does John Bolton’s book come out again?

[quote]So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” Pelosi told reporters following the Democrats’ purely partisan impeachment. [italic](Daily Wire)[/italic]

It wasn't "purely partisan." Several democrats, for whatever reasons, did not vote to impeach. It was the republican side that was "purely partisan," voting in lockstep.

At what point will the Senate be ready to hold a trial then? Because no one’s getting voted out until November 2020.

Smartest move yet! Keep investigating, keep the heat on him. Giving Mitch McConnell the reigns will just play into Trumps hands.

Go Nancy. Make this as painful and long as possible. Hammer home the negatives - he will do this again, Republican Senators have already said they are not looking to give a fair trial, most Americans agree with impeachment.

People are also missing the fact that a lot of Republicans abstained. Yes it was partisan - and a few Dems flaked and didn’t vote either - but there were a lot of Republicans who at least didn’t vote innocent. Sucks - but was glad to see at least a glimmer of sanity with some Republicans,

Forgive me for being shallow and irrelevant, but Nancy looks great for a 79 year old woman

She stuck a shiv into his fat gut and will leave it there until she decides to twist it.

She knows what she's doing. She knows how to drive him insane.

Let her twist the knife whenever she wants his attention. I am going to laugh like a lunatic Everytime she twists that knife.

Nancy has a great colorist too

I thought this would be dumb, to delay sending the articles over to the Senate, but this gives her some cards that might trump Trump! Something to re-evaluate daily until settled. I stand corrected.

Trump will be unsettled. He”ll want to move on to get it over with. And McConnell will want to move along before Trump says something stupid.

McConnell will feel pressure from voters, who I just saw, said they want a “fair” trial. His schedule, for what it’s worth, will be all screwed up. I sense he’s the kind of guy who doesn’t like surprises, likes to plan, and likes order, personally.

Maybe she’ll tell Mitch that Pence will be safe until November, if he agrees to an honest trial? That would be reasonable, wouldn’t it?

But Nancy has some cards, I think.

I worry about Nancy being too thin.

Nancy Pelosi Just Made a Major Impeachment Power Play

She won’t send the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she feels they’ll get a fair hearing.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

What was that brooch she was wearing, any guesses? It looked like an eagle but what was that long thing it was sitting on? It must have some significance.

We simply will not allow some kind of 'fishing expedition' trying to add facts, details and personal testimonies to a trial.

The longer she drags this out the more Trump will fall apart. He’ll lose his shit (even more than he already has.)

Nancy has great legs.

Nancy has great legs.

I can’t understand why Nancy never ran for President.

R18 The Mace of the House of Representatives

She rammed it up Dumps fat arse.

You have a short memory r23. She’s been demonized by the russublicans almost as long as Hillary. San Francisco liberal. Scary. And until recently, was not that popular among the impossible to please and fickle Dems. But guys like us always knew she was a badass

I did not serve in a war, or risk harm in the civil rights movement.

But my Dad had his ship torpedoed in WWII. It sunk. He wound up in the Mediterranean. After a brief break, he was shipped to the Pacific. 40 years later, he still had occasional, if rare, dreams of “fighting the Japs”, as he said.

Another many-great grandfather died on a gunboat in NYC Harbor, in the War of 1812.

And another many-great grandfather served in the Revolutionary War, at age 14.

People suffered and died for our great nation. Or otherwise greatly sacrificed. The Republican Reps. should be reminded that their job doesn’t compare to what others have risked.

[quote]The longer she drags this out the more Trump will fall apart. He’ll lose his shit (even more than he already has.)

Talk slower. I'm almost there...

Is another mean lady going to keep hurting Daddy?

R27, I wonder if any of our remaining living WWII vets know that the Army is glorifying Nazi war criminals now.

r18

[quote]San Francisco liberal

<3

Melania begins divorce proceedings: I no be married to loser

OMFG, R30

These are death rattles of a democracy.

I hope Nancy has ample protection. The MAGAits are calling for Civil War on Twitter. I reported dozens of them.

Most probably aren’t real people r35

The DL shouldn't care about glorifying that Nazi because he's hot

It’s really easy to drink too much and mouth off online.

If his MAGATS threaten, then they should be shot for treason. They're terrorists. Kill them.

Daily Wire, OP? Ben Shapiro’s site. Really.

LOL at R34! Drama Queen.

These sorts of parliamentary shenanigans sank the opposition parties in the UK. The majority of voters see this as mere political posturing but, hey, live in your bubble. People were on Twitter predicting Boris Johnson would lose his own seat up to the very moment the polls closed.

This is genius. I had some time to think about it, and it’s brilliant. Let it simmer.

Everybody hates Mitch. Repigs, deplorables, Democrats... everybody.

The more this lingers on, the more it’s Nancy and the people against evil Mitch and the cabal.

It’s enough to scrape off a few independents and normals. And also MAKE THE REPIG SENATORS SWEAT IT OUT AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.

The types of cons the republicans pull don’t last very long g, that’s why they have to do stuff fast like cram Kavanaughty through.

Nancy is smart by letting their comments marinate. How long can they ignore facts and logic?

Reddit is being grown up and mature for once and has some great comments on this.

This is BRILLIANT.

Can somebody do the handclap emoji?

Slay Nancy!

Her popularity is going to be through the roof.

Deplorables want so badly to turn on plump so badly. Their farms are in ruins. Factories are closing. But they need a good cover. They need something that they can save face on. If the Dems just continue to highlight all the bills that are already passed and keep sticking up for the common man they can make some headway.

It might not look like it yet.

My favorite sentence of the day after:

[quote]Donald J. Trump is the third President of the United States to be impeached.

is: [quote] Pelosi basically grabbed Trump by the pussy and isn’t letting go.

Basically, time is on Nancy and the democrat’s side.

Pelosi basically grabbed Trump by the pussy and isn’t letting go.

McConnell is due for a press conference at 9:30.

Maybe Pelosi needs to go on before him and frame the way forward. Or speak after him.

Democrats need to make sure to be the ones driving the message. That message should loudly and clearly highlight all the bills democrats have passed in the last year. And keep driving home corruption and illustrate how it affects the common person.

BRILLIANT! I didn't think they would do it but I heard a theory being tossed around by experts about a week ago.

Better yet, the constitution says nothing about timing. In theory they could drag this out all the way to the election and he will never get his "Vindication" everyone assumed including Cheeto would have to brag about. On a pragmatic level, why bother, we all know if it goes to the Senate Republicans by their own admission have made up their mind. Why give him the win?

The only thing the Republicans could try is "right to a speedy" trial. But that for REAL trials and that would contradict what they have been saying all along that this is a not a real trial it's a political process. Besides, a speedy trial in the regular world average2 years. Big trials involving big companies can go on for 10 years. You'll get your trial Cheeto, just maybe after you are kicked out on your ass.

I hope Cheeto's head explodes form the internal rage he must be feeling right now. Fingers crossed.

If we’re going to have all these 80-year olds running for president, here’s an idea:

Nancy for Prez!

Technically, she is 3rd in line for the Presidency if both the Presidency and VP were both suddenly to die or leave office. It's never happened though. And usually, Pres and VP are not allowed to travel in the same airplane or a car at the same time. But I suppose Trump could have a stroke, Pence have a nervous breakdown or caught with an alter boy. Anything is possible.

Now the Dems can go to court to compel the witnesses to testify. That’s what the Repubs all said they wanted. Being an ongoing impeachment issue should give it some priority.

I'd want Pence as president if only to see the WH during Christmas look like the Quacker Factory and Hobby Lobby exploded in there once "Mother" got through decorating

R57 in another impeachment the court is convened in the senate. So you can’t compel anyone to do anything until the articles are sent over and the judge takes his place. She’s holding up the whole process.

Word salad alert, at r42.

First the Repugs whined and whined and whined this is going too fast. Now watch them whine it's going to slow.

PUSHY BOTTOMS!

Y'all libtards..what don't kill us makes us stronger.

Let’s do as Ms. Graham hoped.

I'm at my parents for a week. My father is crapping on 'poor Trump, that Nancy is an evil bitch!'. I've got another 6 days of this.

Poison him, r64.

Nancy’s political instincts are good, so I’m going to have to trust her on this one.

Who is investigating McConnell and his wife? They are owned by Putin, just like Trump. When do these traitors go to jail? I am serious.

Total baller. The best Nancy since Ms. Sinatra. x

This is a b.s. article from a right wing site.

Nancy has more balls than Trump and his two sons put together.

R64 wear a red IMPEACHED cap around the house.

Now they need to go after the top line republicans in the House & Senate who've run their mouths the loudest against the impeachment. Hammer away at these turncoat scumbags so their constituencies will get all the info they need should the fools run for reelection. Make whatever is left of their lifetimes in Congress pure hell.

R64 block FOX with the parental controls while you are visiting

and they need to start with Turtle Head McConnell & Dame Lindsey (I've got a big secret) Graham.

Travis in R62 and all his tight bodied MAGA buddies need to be hate fuked, hard.

R5, thank you for my laugh of the day! I'm laughing so hard my ribs hurt and snot is coming out of my nose! LOL

r75 - yeah, Travis is flag-hag. They deserve it and, dare I say it, they may experience an epiphany.

Pelosi and all the dems in Congress need to up their game on publicly admonishing the Republicans in Congress for being complicit in all of Trump's crimes through their enabling and absolute devotion to the crook. That needs to be said every day, on billboards all over the country (especially in red states). Right wing conservatives are not bright and like all dummies they can be manipulated if it's done right and for long enough.

R73, R78, you guys activated the statistician in me. University studies demonstrated that the average American "Fox News" viewer has an IQ that's 20 points below average. I'm not surprised.

OP is a Trumptard. Check that linked site. Also, "the Democrats’ purely partisan impeachment..."??

Nancy shoukd say: "Since we don't confirm a Supreme Court pick in the last year of a President's term, we also don't send articles of impeachment over to the Senate in the last year of a President's term."

And then watch Moscow Mitch implode.

She’s managing a lot of complexity and competing expectations, and she has for a long time now. I like her respect for process. Watching her last night, it seemed like a really high pressure public moment, and she was generally unflappable. I really don’t want her mischaracterized because of her age or appearance. There is no dignity in that.

Her reverence for Elijah Cummings was touching, on a human level.

Her job is very hard.

R76 is EASILY amused.

R83, no, I just wasn't expecting a comment like that.

Once the trial happens and he’s acquitted, then it’s over...which is good for Trump.

She could drag this out until the election. Which means Trump was impeached and still looks guilty. In essence, charged but not tried.

In reality, she’s probably just buying some time until Senate Dems come up with a strategy.

[quote]Nancy shoukd say: "Since we don't confirm a Supreme Court pick in the last year of a President's term, we also don't send articles of impeachment over to the Senate in the last year of a President's term." And then watch Moscow Mitch implode.

She should say that. It’s a brilliant strategy.

She’s up to beating Moscow Mitch and the Senatrice at their own game. She’s smarter then those pencil dicks every day of the week.

[QUOTE] She’s managing a lot of complexity and competing expectations, and she has for a long time now. I like her respect for process. Watching her last night, it seemed like a really high pressure public moment, and she was generally unflappable. I really don’t want her mischaracterized because of her age or appearance. There is no dignity in that.

I just wish she was 20 years younger because I don’t know what the hell the Dems will do without her. The House Dem caucus would be in complete disarray without Nancy.

[quote]The only thing the Republicans could try is "right to a speedy" trial.

Yeah, except McConnell went in TV boasting about how Impeachment is an entirely political process. There’s nothing judicial about it. So sorry, no right to a speedy trial applies here.

R89 they’re consummate liars and hypocrites. Someone said shamelessness is their superpower. A great line, wish I’d thought of it

If she drags this out until the election...even if Trump is re-elected somehow, the Senate could flip Dem. Then she could sent it over in January 2021 for Trump to be quickly tried and removed.

R91, that would not be "dragging it out". The Constitution does not require the House to send the Articles in a certain period of time, IIRC.

If you’re going to obstruct Congress, you can’t bitch when Congress obstructs you.

So here’s a Legal thought that would definitely come up. If she holds it until his 2nd term, technically they’d probably fight that it applied to his 1st and therefore was re-elected and it didn’t apply to his 2nd, separate term. This Republicans are constantly twisting the rules and laws, so expect anything and everything.

R94, the term doesn't matter. IIRC, a federal crime, especially against the gov't, doesn't have a statute of limitations.

Nancy, with the smiling face

R24 Mace of the Republic, the gavel of the Speaker.

If she delays sending the case to the Senate she'll be questioned right and left by the media and the GOP. She needs to make sure she informs all that they have additional information they're going over and that they will not send the case over until they are finished with their additional investigations. That would make Trump lose his shit, literally. He would crap his pants right there in the Oval Office if he thinks they've got more on him and he doesn't know what it is.

MICROSOFT NEWS POLL

Do you agree or disagree with the House of Representatives vote to impeach President Trump?

Agree = 51%

Disagree = 43%

I don't know = 3%

No opinion = 3%

Based on 27,629 responses. Snapshot of real-time results.Learn More

If the House withholds sending it to the Senate, can the Senate just ignore their impeachment vote?

R98, I don't think that's ethical or legal because they've already voted on the Articles. You can't add more to an indictment or say "Oh, we're not ready to proceed with our indictments because we need to gather more evidence." Need a Constitutional attorney's advice on that, however.

R99, no disrespect, but as I posted in another thread not long ago, polls don't mean a darned thing and I can see by how that was taken it's irrelevant.

There is no expiration date on articles of impeachment, though I'm certain McConnell et al. will claim there is.

Given there was new evidence (the $1M to Lev Parnas) it seems legitimate to keep the articles back anyway, pending further review of the situation. Plus if the House gets Trump's financials there will be more articles to add before they present it all in one package to the Senate.

[quote] If the House withholds sending it to the Senate, can the Senate just ignore their impeachment vote?

Since they can't do a damn thing until it is sent over they have no choice but to ignore it. The Senate will just have to sit on their hands until they have the case.

$2.99

Bluntly, McConnell is the most unpopular Senator today. In Kentucky, he's at 34%. He's up for re-election in 2020 but has high unfavorables. He wants this behind him to start fund raising. The longer the Speaker withholds the bill, the worse it is for the Senators in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

There are three Senate Classes. Classes I and II have 33 senators, Class 3 has 34 senators and they're up in 2022. There are twice as many republicans up for re-election in 2020 as Democrats.

Republicans Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) Cassidy, Bill (R-LA) Collins, Susan M. (R-ME) Cornyn, John (R-TX) Cotton, Tom (R-AR) Daines, Steve (R-MT) Enzi, Michael B. (R-WY) Ernst, Joni (R-IA) Gardner, Cory (R-CO) Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) Hyde-Smith, Cindy (R-MS) Inhofe, James M. (R-OK) McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) Perdue, David (R-GA) Risch, James E. (R-ID) Roberts, Pat (R-KS) Rounds, Mike (R-SD) Sasse, Ben (R-NE) Sullivan, Dan (R-AK) Tillis, Thom (R-NC)

Democrats need to win 4 seats to retake the Senate. The most vulnerable republicans are Cory Gardner (CO), Susan Collins (ME), Thom Tillis (NC), Martha McSally (AZ), Gary Peters (MI), Doug Jones (AL), Joni Ernst (IA), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), John Cornyn (TX). The republicans will likely pick up Dough Jones's seat in Alabama, unless another Klansman runs against him.

There's no particularly urgency for the Speaker to forward the bill. She can hold it. It should expire at the end of this Congress but there are votes to hold the same impeachment vote in the next congress in January, if need be. She can announce the bill will be withheld until the Supreme Court rules on the questions of executive privilege and evidence subpoeaned by the House committees.

They should conduct additional investigations and then just keep adding new additional articles of impeachment throughout the rest of his term.

Is Mitch McConnell melting down? I’m hearing that his statements were scathing against Pelosi.

Nancy is incredibly strategic. She called Trump’s bluff early this year during the government shutdown and he came out looking like a total loser.

Today in history: President Bill Clinton was impeached.

R108, because she is controlling the narrative and he thinks he’s king of the senate. Trump must be on MoscowMitch like white on rice seeking full exoneration of his perfect call. They both must be apoplectic about Queen Nancy holding the articles and I’m here for it. Maybe they’ll both stroke out.

R106, I had a relative from McConnell's home district. He called out that "no-good SOB" correctly when he was just a judge in Jefferson County, Kentucky. He was never popular, but he rode the Reagan Revolution right into DC.

I read that Moscow Mitch’s approval rating in KY was at 18%

R113, I wouldn't doubt it because as I said, he was never even popular in his own back yard. He won his 1st Senate race over the long-time Democratic incumbent by a razor-thin margin. If that victory was legitimate, it was only due to evil, senile Ronnie Reagan.

R103 It could depend on your version of how to play long ball in Washington.

The House can also vote to impeach any appointee of the Executive or Judicial Branches. The door is open, based on information the Supreme Court allows to Congress, that both of Trump's sons, his daughter, son in law, Rudy and any other Trump employee is either employed by the White House or services in an advisory capacity can be subpoenaed with new articles of impeachment voted on by the committees and held for full vote in the House.

It's death by a thousand cuts.

Dear Diary: I have nothing to do today. BORING. But when I make my "remarks" at the Xmas receptions today, heads are gonna roll. Fire and fury. I'm more popular than Jesus!

Thank you baby jesus that the dems stuck with nancy to lead the house. Can you imagine if a jr congressperson were trying to run this show!?

The House should have the legal authority to jail anyone who refuses to answer a subpoena issued when they're engaged in an impeachment investigation.

[quote]The House Dem caucus would be in complete disarray without Nancy.

Two words: Adam Schiff.

Her wardrobe for yesterday's impeachment was genius. Sitting in the Speaker's chair, she looked like the Commander of the Starship Enterprise.

She's trying to get a fair trial. So he will go, duh!

She looks wonderful for her age

Bloomberg:

Pelosi Cites Precedent for Delay on Managers: Impeachment Update

I hate when people are squealing, "We need to drop this and get back to doing REAL WORK for the people of America!"

Like, protecting the Constitution and our form of government isn't doing something for them??

OP's picture convinces me that Nancy Pelosi is hotter at 79 than Madonna has been the past 10 years or so.

From the Twitterverse:

GOP: THIS IS GOING TOO FAST WHY ARE YOU SUCH PARTISAN MONSTERS THIS IS WILDLY UNFAIR SO UNFAIR HISTORICALLY UNFAIR SLOW THIS DOWN SLOW IT DOWN

Pelosi: Okay.

GOP: no not like that

R122, what the hell did she do with that eyebrow pencil??

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

From link at R122

[quote]Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will lay out his criticism of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry Thursday morning, in a floor speech calling the probe[italic] “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.”[/italic]

Even had that been true, that's why HIS trial in the Senate should be??

It feels really strange to be in an America where it's the LEFT warning the RIGHT about Russian interference.

Where did their career-making Cold War fear mongering go?

R129, as my late friend who worked for the #1 defense contractor said, Soviet people put on their pants one leg at a time just like we did. The evil people were the leaders and their sycophants, not the people. I've had Soviet and Russian friends. In general, they didn't want to harm this country. The East German secret police (Stasi) once had as much as 1/3 of the entire population of that former country working for them and was worse than the KGB and NKVD.

Like the GOP effectively strung out the Benghazi hearings as long as possible to hurt Hillary as a candidate, Nancy could do this with impeachment

Nancy had no choice...she is trying to work with a bunch of criminals.

I have learned that at least half of our country, has no morals or character at all, they are Republicans. I knew they were bad people but I had no idea how bad they were.

The "right to a speedy trial" was tried by Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald. Didn't work for him, either, as he was not incarcerated at the time.

Thanks, R24!

There is no fucking point to send it to the Senate now. I think dragging it out for as long as needed, is fine. Yeah, the Trumpers will be frothing at the mouth and he’ll act crazy as fuck, but that’ll just help scare off normal people from the Republican Party. I’m here for the ride.

[quote]Everybody hates Mitch.

Not true. Everyone who cheered as he blocked the Garland nomination and rammed Kavanaugh through loves Mitch. He steamrolls everyone in his path and gets the job done.

And no taking advice from any Republican who simply happens to hate Trump for his being the Party's true face: Steve Schmidt; Rick Wilson; Donny Deutsch; George Conway; et al.

[quote]Then she could sent it over in January 2021 for Trump to be quickly tried and removed.

It takes a 2/3 majority to convict and likely even some of the Democratic Senators would balk at a delay like that.

[quote]I hate when people are squealing, "We need to drop this and get back to doing REAL WORK for the people of America!"

Point out to them that the House has passed dozens of bills since the beginning of the year, all of which are being held back in the Senate by McConnell, not even getting a vote.

[quote]University studies demonstrated that the average American "Fox News" viewer has an IQ that's 20 points below average.

Cite your source, please. How would anyone be able to gather the IQ scores of an adequately sized sample for such a study to be valid?

I call bullshit.

[quote] I call bullshit.

The stupidest goddamned phrase ever coined.

She should think about never sending it to the senate so Trump would be impeached, but never acquitted.

She's playing let them twist in the wind while she (and Schumer, sp?) push for more testimony in the Senate. Meanwhile the investigations turn- and the Supreme Court will rule on his taxes. Eventually it will go to the Senate, but not after Mitch et al have made fools of themselves for a while, and God knows what else Trump will concoct in his incompetent and sociopathic mind. How can you maintain innocence when you've been proven just the opposite by diplomatic professionals and you are stonewalling on all staff and cabinet implicated. If they knew nothing and were innocent, they would have testified! See exhibit A: HRC Sec of State. Twist in the wind you disgusting Republicans. Let Trump call Dems names and idiotic Senators compare him to Christ. Great arguments. Right?

[quote]I hate when people are squealing, "We need to drop this and get back to doing REAL WORK for the people of America!" Like, protecting the Constitution and our form of government isn't doing something for them??

It's from the Republican playbook. Like when a mass shooting occurs and people want to talk about gun control, the GOP squeals how Now is not the time! It's time for thoughts and prayers!" Unless of course a non-white guy is the shooter, then they screech about immigration.

R88 That’s unfortunately true.

I don't normally like political families and I still have huge issues with Pelosi, but I think it helps who her dad was. She's been dealing with these men-children for decades.

The uncertainty of not knowing what will happen will drive Trump insane, and Pelosi knows it. She’s playing him, again.

The same people who were lambasting Pelosi this summer for being a passive aging apparatchik are now worshiping the ground she walks on. What will they be saying in February?

The House mace pin!

God, Pelosi trolls this fool even as as wields the mace to crack his thick skull!

That is a master class in the subtle troll. Jill Wine Banks is proud.

Now is the time to begin impeachment investigations into Graham and McConnell for publicly vowing to reject their sworn oath of impartiality.

Then into the Republicans whom Putin beckoned to appear before him on the 4th of July.

Then into McConnell’s beardwife for her list of crimes.

The Supreme Court will never rule against Trump or any Republican president. The Reps built that conservative court that Clinton had to opportunity to add to, and that Obama should have added to.

Yeah r151, too bad Obama didn't try.

[quote]Now is the time to begin impeachment investigations into Graham and McConnell for publicly vowing to reject their sworn oath of impartiality.

What about the Democrats who have been screeching “Impeach Trump!” for the past 2 years? They’re not exactly impartial either. Should we begin impeachment investigations against them too? You can’t have it both ways.

And I don’t recall any “sworn oaths of impartiality” being taken by anyone. They swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, nothing about “impartiality.”

R153, nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade and a criminal a criminal.

John Dean suggested this a while ago. Not only did he say dont send the articles to the senate, he said that congress can vote to add new articles every time Trump commits an impeachable offense.

[quote]What about the Democrats who have been screeching “Impeach Trump!” for the past 2 years? They’re not exactly impartial either. Should we begin impeachment investigations against them too?

Here's the difference, genius, as Hoyer reminded you: The overwhelming majority of Dems voted AGAINST Impeachment THREE TIMES in cases where a *few* Dems were for it. You see, that's how it works on the left unlike that fucking cult on the right where not a single Rep has a backbone except for one who is now an IND: Amash.

Dems who made speeches yesterday stated that there are Reps who tell them quietly that they know Trump is a fucking criminal - they just don't have the guts to go against their cult.

R153 is a stupid fucking cunt, and not in a good way

Is part of the delay caused by the election? Sanders, Warren, Kloubacher and Booker will have to put their campaigning on hold right before the first primaries and caucuses for the trial?

The trolls come out of the woodwork at times like this, r157.

[quote]What is Nancy up to?

Being fabulous.

Moscow Mitch spotted in public today.

But why isn’t Mitch popular? Surly not for the impeachment business? That’s just more of the same for him, isn’t it? I’m curious?

There are more shoes waiting to drop, particularly Trump's role in the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi.

That imposing outfit and stunning brooch mad me think of Queen Cersei right before she blew up all of her enemies in the chapel. She knows how to convey power and authority. I love it!

GO, NANCY, GO!

And her colorist / stylist should take a big gay bow. Fab hair.

R165 her dentist and oral surgeon on the other hand...

Ya want a piece of this Fancy Nancy? Come on down

In 2016 Trump was gold. Flawless, brilliant, successful, charismatic.

2020, not so much. A lot of fails, a lot of scandal, a lot of baggage. Older fatter, meaner.

The fence-sitters who said 'eeny-meeny' and voted for Trump just won't be there to push him into success. Some will vote Democrat; some won't bother to vote all.

Now repugs are trying to say impeachment isn’t complete unless it gets sent the senate. I doubt that’s true.

Where the fuck are you getting that information R168. Trump has always been seen as a loser.

R153:

[quote] And I don’t recall any “sworn oaths of impartiality” being taken by anyone. They swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, nothing about “impartiality.”

Read this:

[quote] “Before proceeding to the consideration of the articles of impeachment,” according to the standing rules of Senate impeachment trials, “the Presiding Officer shall administer the oath hereinafter provided to the members of the Senate then present and to the other members of the Senate as they shall appear, whose duty it shall be to take the same.”

And, here’s the oath. Pay particular attention to the words in the oath:

[quote] “I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, [bold] I will do impartial justice [/bold] according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

There’s the requirement that they be impartial.

[quote]In 2016 Trump was gold. Flawless, brilliant, successful, charismatic.

Say what now? He was birther low life and before that he was still fucking trash.

was a*

R171, are there consequences for violating the oath? One would assume their comments would prevent McConnell from administering and Graham from taking the oath.

R174, these are Repukes. They never suffer any consequences for anything.

In all seriousness, I’m not sure what consequences they would face or who would enforce the oath. It would appear that they should be disqualified from voting, I don’t believe the existing rules address that question.

And, it’s not as if they would self-police. They have no shame and they have no honor.

[quote]The fence-sitters who said 'eeny-meeny' and voted for Trump just won't be there to push him into success. Some will vote Democrat; some won't bother to vote all.

If the headlines continue to claim that the economy is doing better than ever, that unemployment is at historic lows, that wages are rising, that the stock market is at historic highs, that there are no new wars, that inflation is low, that gas prices are low, that Black and Latino employment is at historic highs...then Trump will gain voters over 2016..

R169 is a troll.

The media needs to stop repeating Republican taking points. Unemployment at historic lows? Really? Compared to what? In 1944 it was much lower at 1.4%. That's 200% lower then the current rate. Why dont they match that every time with wage stagnation at historic lows? Sure, you hear that every once in a blue moon, but 9 out of 10 times you dont here it. And to be honest, wages are really what affect the average person, not the stock market for the rich and corporate quarterly profits.

R176 I disagree, unless the Dems come up with a terrible candidate. I know a lot of people who didn't vote in 2016, and they now regret it. They will certainly vote in 2020, but NOT for Trump. They had enough with his shenanigans way before this all blew up.

R153, Some Democrats have been noting Trump's criminality and treason for years. Starting with his campaign, when HRC correctly noted he is Putin's puppet.

Also, the "oath of impartiality" likely refers to their future one as a juror in the Senate trial.

R179 you're correct. A retired relative of mine never voted in her life. For 2016 I convinced her to register and vote. She voted for Senator Clinton. She's in excellent health and will vote next November also.

[quote]University studies demonstrated that the average American "Fox News" viewer has an IQ that's 20 points below average.

Not true. There was a hoax article in 2012 that claimed that but there were no university studies. Since then there have been studies on how informed Fox News viewers are but nothing like what you claim.

Pushing hoaxes isn't helping us any.

[quote]The same people who were lambasting Pelosi this summer for being a passive aging apparatchik are now worshiping the ground she walks on.

Unfortunately, not the people I see online. The ones who were saying Pelosi didn't have the balls to impeach and that she needed to be removed are now saying she's stupid and the impeachment doesn't mean anything. They're VERY into the "Trump is going to win again thanks to the Democrats fucking us over" narrative.

It's all bullshit of course but that's what these people have been saying, in my experience.

[quote]In 2016 Trump was gold. Flawless, brilliant, successful, charismatic.

Gold, R168?

Gold?

I'm never afraid and rarely surprised, she said in an interview today.

I hate FAUX News but I never fell for that average viewer IQ story. The average IQ is anything between 90-110. Anyone should be smart enough to figure out that the average IQ of FAUX News viewers is certainly not 70-90. Although, they do act like they're that stupid most of the time.

Most conservatives don't actually believe a lot of the bullshit they espouse. They know it's not true, but the narrative fits their needs and desires so they promote all of it as being real. It gives them comfort. They're afraid if they admit much of what they're told and they claim they believe in is not true people will accuse them of being a liberal with is the most heinous thing you can ever call a conservative.

R187 it’s equivalent to liking a certain football team now. Being liberal is “gay” like recycling and liking Mariah Carey music. A bunch of fucking retards.

Conservatives are very much like Scientologists or members of any other cult. They've been raised by conservatives and the ideology has literally been bred into them. It's all they know. They've been told their whole lives that liberalism is of the Devil and to adopt liberal attitudes will mean an eternity in Hell. Even if they know a lot of it isn't true they will still tow the cult line because that's what they've been taught they must do. Most people like that will never change their ideology without reprogramming. They are so sick in their conservative delusion that if their lives are made to be wonderful under a liberal democratic POTUS they will still claim that liberalism is the worst thing ever.

Most are not guided by any conservative ideology. They are guided by fear. It's the fear of everything and everyone that fuels 'conservatism.' At every turn, they are trained to anticipate threat from the world outside. They band together, toe the line, and resist every new idea from any but their leaders. All to stay safe in a dangerous world. They are doomed to fail and they will be happy to take us all down with them.

R189, you described my parents perfectly.

Fortunately, the cycle was broken when all three of their children turned out to be bleeding-heart liberals!

All of this would have been pointless if she doesn't send to senate. Without a trial, the president isnt impeached. I hope she has something up her sleeve, and she isn't getting cold feet.

I really don't care, do u?

[quote]Without a trial, the president isnt impeached.

The president is already impeached. The Senate decides whether he will be removed from office.

[quote]That imposing outfit and stunning brooch mad me think of Queen Cersei right before she blew up all of her enemies in the chapel. She knows how to convey power and authority.

Or this...

Donald Trump* will be shitting bricks since he thought a quick trial would acquit him and he could brag about it all the way up to the elections and beyond. Now, I encourage all newspapers to use the apostrophe after his name, which will infuriate him, as the apostrophe means he is impeached (and unlike Bill Clinton), not acquitted. Nancy has Donald Trump* and Mitch McConnell stymied.

R194

Technically, until the impeachment articles are presented to the Senate, they are like a bill that has not been signed into law. If they refuse to present them to the Senate before the next Congress begins, the impeachment will have an asterisk since it was never fulfilled.

Sorry r194 You should be fired from your teaching job.

Never fulfilled = never acquitted, too, but still impeached.

The hypocrisy is unreal

[quote] I encourage all newspapers to use the apostrophe after his name

That's an asterisk.

Ok, same idea - asterisk then.

The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."

"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all," Feldman wrote.

Nancy Pelosi yesterday: ”He just got impeached. He’ll be impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does. He’s impeached forever because he violated our Constitution."

[quote]The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page Thursday.

Yeah, this "Trump isn't impeached unless he gets a Senate trial" stuff has been ricocheting around right-wing media the last day.

The right-wing also believes that if you cover your eyes, it means you're hiding.

R192, that’s another conservative lie. Of course Trump is impeached. The House has sole authority over impeachment. It was voted upon, and declared. It’s the will of the people expressed through their representatives, and the conservatives can’t take that away from us, as Americans.

Feldman doesn't understand it's a two-step process, and each is separate (not some Trump fantasy of a single enterprise). Impeach. Then convict (or acquit).

You can't deny reality and fact: Trump was impeached.

R205...Staffers are probably telling him that to keep him from exploding. They know better. They have to be around the raging infant.

Until the articles of impeachment are transmitted to the Senate, it is merely an accusation.

The author of the article explaining this is a constitutional law professor who has called for Trump to be impeached and removed, so you can’t accuse him of being biased in favor of Trump.

R207

Until they transmit those articles of impeachment to the Senate, it is an accusation, not an indictment.

Is it possible that Chief Justice Roberts may actually be fair? For example, when oaths are taken, he may disallow Mitch and Linsey due to their public statements. That would mean two less votes. Also, Collins needs to make amends for Kavenaugh. Murkowski is also a maybe. With four less votes, the rethuglicans lose and trump is gone.

"IF I PUT THE HOT WHEELS BACK ON THE SHELF, IT'S NOT REALLY STEALING."

R212...Removal requires 2/3rds of the Senate.

[quote] I encourage all newspapers to use the apostrophe after his name

[quote] That's an asterisk.

[quote] Ok, same idea - asterisk then

Oh, dear! There is a hierarchy, with the asterisk considered to be the aristocrat of punctuation, and the apostrophe to be in the evening cleaning crew. They are not the same at all!

Now, “Merry Christmas”, I hereby command.

My assistant Randolf insists on saying “Merry Christmas”, too.

CBS:

White House considers arguing that Trump wasn't impeached

While he is certainly impeached, it’s a moot point; since Nancy, (“I call her ‘Nancy’”)*, will be sure to sent them to the Senate, even if it’s on the last day of the session.

* Donald J. Trump , our idiot President*

Mitch and Lindsey are not the only ones to express an opinion about Trump ‘s guilt. Lots of Dems have as well. I think all they need say is they “have decided to listen with an open mind and judge unbiased”, and I’d bet that would be all they need to do, at most, if even that, to be seated as jurors. This just isn’t the hill to die on.

So basically going with the George Costanza defense.

"It's not a lie if you believe it"

[quote]conservative lie

Redundant.

R210 Then why do the newspapers and books say that Clinton and Johson are impeached, too? So they weren't removed, but they were impeached. Donald Trump* was impeached.

Gail King has been referring to him as Mr.Trump since the impeachment not President Trump. Sly but I noticed Gail!

R210 President Clinton actually went to trial in the senate.

Ah yes, r200, McCarthy.....

Yes, but newspapers referred to him as "impeached" after the House voted on it, before it went to the Senate.

I look at McCarthy now and all I hear is him sounding similar to Veruca Salt saying "You've ruined Christmas!"

R211, And if they're never transmitted to the Senate, Trump's impeachment will be eventually voided. It will expire like an unredeemed gift card.

[quote]Yeah, this "Trump isn't impeached unless he gets a Senate trial" stuff has been ricocheting around right-wing media the last day.

[quote]The right-wing also believes that if you cover your eyes, it means you're hiding.

Uh, do you folks know who Noah Feldman is?

Harvard Law's Laurence Tribe:

@NoahRFeldman is making a clever but wholly mistaken point when he says Trump hasn’t “really” been impeached until the Articles reach the Senate. Under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period.

Amen

[quote]Uh, do you folks know who Noah Feldman is?

Wasn't he the bizarro Newman on Seinfeld?

Wasn't he on that ark?

The power of the gavel.

I agree with Lawrence Tribe — and I suspect a lot of other lawyers will as well. Feldman’s opinion is his opinion, not the law; people are free to disagree with him.

Plus, the current Congress sits until the end of 2020, so Madam Speaker can hold those articles of impeachment for months if she wants to.

WhY CaN'T We iMpEaCh nAnCy iNsTeAd

[quote]r192 All of this would have been pointless if she doesn't send to senate.

No - the public has learned through direct testimony and irrefutable evidence what Mr. Trump did, as far as nakedly leveraging his official position for [italic]personal [/italic]gain. How can you say exposing that is pointless? The public deserves to know such things about ANY official, certainly our most highly placed one.

Pelosi will send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. But there has to be some bargaining first. The House has to ensure the Senate will conduct a fair trial.

From r235....

Nancy has this thing plotted out to a T. She's now sent a 3 paragraph letter to the fat fuck inviting him to deliver a State Of The Union address on 2/4/20. You can bet she won't send the impeachment over to the Senate before then. LOL

R238 - I relish that she politely (and pointedly) emphasized the Constitution, and how a State of the Union address is a known tradition of a check in which ensures all branches of the government remain co-equal as was the Founders' intent. She is so good with the kind of shade that is will stick in Trump's craw and drive him further bonkers, and I am here for it.

Holy shit, R237. What a fucking cockroach he is.

He is such fucking trash.

Seriously, just burn the building down when he's removed and start over. That stench of Trump shit cannot be removed. It needs to be exorcised.

I don't think that's authentic, r240. Just some anonymous troll's work. Of course I could be wrong.

The letter that tRump sent to Pelosi accepting the SotU invite with it’s “fuck you cunt” spelled out at the start of each line is vile and despicable. You know it was probably the work of that disgusting snake Steven Miller who thought this was so dreadfully clever.

OK, looks like the letter might well be a fake. News reports are saying that he issued a statement t accepting the invite, not that he sent her a letter.

If that letter is real it needs to be paraded on every mainstream news media outlet in existence. It's just more evidence that he is a low piece of common trash.

[quote]I don't think that's authentic, [R240]. Just some anonymous troll's work. Of course I could be wrong.

I normally see through this shit. The fact that we've gotten to a point where I'd easily believe it's real based on the garbage currently employed in the WH is what sickens me the most. That we have a president I could easily see saying these things and some clever rat in his circle of hell coming up with it is just disgusting.

I guess their "cleverness" is limited to sneaking in that tiresome WP/OK symbol to "own the libs."

It's the OCD Millennials who are whining for everything to happen RIGHTNOW. So used to instant results on their Smartphones.

Shut up. Enjoy your holiday. Think about something else.

[quote]I agree with Lawrence Tribe — and I suspect a lot of other lawyers will as well. Feldman’s opinion is his opinion, not the law; people are free to disagree with him.

Plus, the current Congress sits until the end of 2020, so Madam Speaker can hold those articles of impeachment for months if she wants to.

Twittler was impeached on two counts.

Must they travel together? Or can they transmit Article II (Obstruction of Congress) to the Senate, irrefutably have him impeached, and let Mitchie have his show trial...while still letting Article I hang like a dark cloud?

Anybody know?

R247, she could do that, but I think it’s too cute.

I wonder, if Nancy can delay sending the impeachment to the Senate, which she can, can the Senate delay the trial, perhaps for months?

Btw, Nancy will submit the impeachment to the senate eventually, even if it is the last day of the session, just to ensure that there is no question that Trump was impeached.

Nancy insists on calling witnesses.

Mcconnell will counter with a demand to call the whistleblower and the Bidens

Nancy should then counter with a demand that Trump testify. Bill Clinton testified via videotape from the White House, so there is precedence for this.

Nancy could also negotiate an agreement to have Justice Roberts rule on the relevance of the appearance of witnesses. He would surely strike the whistleblower and the Bidens, since none of them are relevant to Trump’s behavior. You could agree that the younger Biden is corrupt, and still find that Trump abused power and obstructed Congress.

No it was not "several" it was two and Gabbard did not vote. Three is no several.

[quote]It wasn't "purely partisan." Several democrats, for whatever reasons, did not vote to impeach. It was the republican side that was "purely partisan," voting in lockstep.

Why did this nonsense get 20 "likes" when it was only two Dems and in one case, it was a Dem who had already announced he was becoming a Republican and most of his staff resigned following that announcement.

[quote]r249 Mcconnell will counter with a demand to call the whistleblower and the Bidens

The whole "wanting to depose the whistleblower" thing is so stupid.

If whistleblowers had to go public, more than half of them would never risk it. That's why there's laws in place to protect their identity.

What would they want to ASK him or her, anyway? What relevance would anything about their life have? Do they think this person forged all the documentation we've seen and heard?

r138, Donny Deutsch? Donny Deutsch is a New York Jew he's not even close to being a Republican. Regardless of your feelings about him or his opinions at times, he is definitely a life time Democrat.

R138, whether we like it or not, we need these asshole Republicans willing to step up because they can maybe convince the even bigger assholes in their party to do what is right. The Jeff Flake Op-Ed is also good for us. This is definitely "a hold your nose and put on gloves to lock hands with Republicans" situation.

I see people going off on Flake for the Kavanaugh thing and he absolutely deserves the criticism, but not now. Any Republican who may come to our side against Trump won't do it because we ask them to. We need a Flake to talk to them directly on their level. We need them to talk to their own.

a "hold...*

R253 I'm not R138 but I seem to recall years ago that he came out as a repub (he is in the top 5% after all).

This could also be another "Donny Deutch" as I have over a dozen similar named citizens across the country that I'm aware of.

I wonder if some of Donnie's tax returns might come out in the next few weeks/months.

Does this delay put any pressure on the Supreme Court?

Irony: Conservatives used to rail against the USSR.

I know Donny Deutsch. He's a Democrat through and through.

[quote]And if they're never transmitted to the Senate, Trump's impeachment will be eventually voided. It will expire like an unredeemed gift card.

Untrue. There is nothing in the Constitution about the articles expiring; if they were held too long, it would surely go to court and precedent would be set by the decision at that time.

Mea culpa, re: Donny Deutsch, and happy to know I'm wrong about him, as I really like his current opinings on MSNBC!

Fuck all, R248. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT TRUMP WAS IMPEACHED. Stop spreading Russian/GOP talking points. Just get a grip and stop.

The resolution passed. It is on the House record. Done. Impeached. For all time.

In fact, R248... Trump was impeached twice. Two resolutions of impeachment. Both passed.

[quote]Irony: Conservatives used to rail against the USSR.

I've said this before on here: There is no doubt in mind that if on 9/11 while the site were still smoldering and Bin Laden was known to be behind it and no one found out: Trump would do business with the Bin laden family -who are also involved in real estate- in a heartbeat and without a single thought to the optics. Money is all that matters to him and clearly to any conservative who backs him to the point of sacrificing the very foundation of the country.

[quote]Thank you baby jesus that the dems stuck with nancy to lead the house. Can you imagine if a jr congressperson were trying to run this show!?

Yeah. And can you imagine if a junior mayor were trying to be the President?

Let’s hope the Dems stick with somebody more qualified and experienced.

Amen, R265!!

[Quote] Irony: Conservatives used to rail against the USSR.

Is irony all there is? I'm surprised the Dems haven't hoisted them on the petard of being unpatriotic and unamerican.

[quote]Let’s hope the Dems stick with somebody more qualified and experienced.

Berni Experience as President = NONE Warren = NONE Klobuchar = NONE Biden = NONE (sorry but VP is mostly a title, its not the same, just like Pence is not really qualified either)

PETE = Only person actually trained to lead and young enough to make split second decisions without losing his shit like Klobuchar, or crapping in his pants like all the senior citizens on the ticket.

Ok🙄

[quote] PETE = Only person actually trained to lead

🙄🙄🙄🙄

[quote] PETE = Only person actually trained to lead .....

Snicker... BULLPUCKY!

[quote]BULLPUCKY!

Settle down Bernie.

Conscientious objector are not trained leaders.

[Quote] PETE = Only person actually trained to lead and young enough to make split second decisions without losing his shit like Klobuchar, or crapping in his pants like all the senior citizens on the ticket.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Pete should be VP. Period. I think it makes his chances to become president in '28 much better. He'll have the experience of actually being in the WH, a lot of the conservative homophobe trash will hopefully have dropped dead and it looks better to those who hesitate right now due to his age.

I’ve learned from Obama and Trump that the government tends to run itself. What we need in a President is:

Someone who appoints talented people. Trump lacks this confidence.

A willingness to ask for expert advice and take it, when appropriate. Trump lacks this humility.

Someone with good judgement and able to make quick decisions. Trump has terrible judgement. He’s an awful deal maker and has a demonstrated history of repeatedly giving things away and getting nothing in return.

A sound mind. Trump is obviously crazy.

A desire to serve all the people, not just his own voters, and desire to put the country ahead of personal interest. Trump fails, fails, fails.

Someone with great intelligence, natural curiosity, a desire to learn more, and interest in reading. Trump has none of that.

Obama generally passed all these tests. Trump fails in every case. Why is this idiot President? I like that Pete is smart, and is quick on his feet. My sense is that he passes all these tests, but I want to see more.

I don’t think a President needs more experience than Pete already has. All of the candidates are qualified. Joe Biden was an effective Senator for many years and a VP who partnered with Obama. He wasn’t like the VPs of yesteryear that may have only rarely met with the President. He has the best experience and is most qualified, except for his age. He might just be too old to be President. I have caught glimpses of that “old man” look in him. It’s a detached, distant, confused look.

Biden is best qualified as VP. He was affable, nonthreatening, well liked. Pete could make him his VP.

Wait. 37 year-old Pete, mayor of the 301st largest city in America is qualified to lead because he's been "trained" but a man who was a U.S. Senator for 36 years and served as Vice President for eight (very good) years isn't?

Everyone seems to have forgotten just how many idiotic things Biden said the last time he ran. He surely has gotten worse with age.

Why is Biden still so gaffe-centric? It’s not as if he and his team don’t know about it at this point.

I would love to see a Biden / Pete ticket, AKA experience and smart youth package. But unfortunately, I feel that if Biden wins the nomination, he will feel trapped into picking a woman or person of color for VP instead of the best guy, which I think is Pete. He could also pick Pete as part of his cabinet, but I would rather see him as his VP precisely because he is such a quick on his feet thinker.

Pete is not the best guy for the VP spot but he would be terrific in the cabinet in a number of roles.

It might take a Rhodes Scholar to fix HUD after four years of Ben Carson. And Buttigieg has some actual experience in the fields of housing and urban development. Put him there.

Don't let him near Health and Human Services because the little shit is in the pocket of the Insurance lobby.

[quote] I feel that if Biden wins the nomination, he will feel trapped into picking a woman or person of color for VP.

Hello!!!!

The last thing the Democrats need is a ticket with two white guys. I'm not as keen on Harris being VP - the VP has to be self-effacing to a large degree and that doesn't seem to be in her DNA. Same goes for Castro and Booker. I do think a POC would energize the ticket as well as the POC vote, which we desperately need.

Biden/Klobuchar might work -- if he makes any gaffes, she can yell at him to snap out of it like Cher in "Moonstruck".

I liked what I knew about Klobuchar, thought she was impressive, then I researched her. She's beyond a cunt, she's evil, the way she has treated her staff is grotesque. I'd never vote for her now. That shaking during the debates: bottled-up rage waiting to blow.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I hope Nancy haunts Bad Donald’s dreams.

R286, what specifically did she do that made her "evil"? I mean I know she's definitely a type A person, but did she do degrading things to them? Politics is a tough world, esp., when you're female.

It better not be a situation where a bunch of millennials weren't patted on the head .

Big deal if she ate her sale with a brush or comb or something like that. Even if she's a tough boss, that's good -- I heard horror stories of Trump being a nightmare boss back from the 80s. If she can take Trump on in a debate and slam his ass on the floor, figuratively or literally, even better.

ate her salad, that is

[quote]I feel that if Biden wins the nomination, he will feel trapped into picking a woman or person of color for VP.

He'd pick someone who can help him win a state that he doesn't think he can win on his own. If that's a woman or person of color then so be it.

He'd already have the black vote on lock down anyway.

A Nancy doll with a gavel would be a nice xmas gift.

R289, that's it?

I'm still waiting to hear what's "evil." I don't want her to be nice. I want her in there fighting. If she were truly evil, I'd hear about her taking tax dollars and using it for personal use or making her staff do things not part of their job. If it's just dealing with cry babies who want to be rewarded for doing their job, then fuck them. Go work a job where you aren't dealing with tough issues. She's effective - that's what we need. I actually want her to stay in the senate.

I have a feeling these are Pete B. people trying to paint her in a negative light.

A whole group of people interviewed by a reporter covering the same group of 13 people's reaction in Iowa has 12 of them saying Klobuchar won the latest debate, and a majority of them now saying they will vote for her!

Klobuchar is 59 and already has old lady's voice.

[quote] R290: ate her salad, that is

Is this slang for something naughty?

Klobuchar has an ad out which lauds her questioning of Justice Kavanaugh, but I think that was an embarrassing fail. When he asked her if she had ever blacked out, she should have said “I’m not seeking Senate confirmation, you are sir. You are here to answer questions, not ask them. It’s not your place in this hearing.”

Throwing an object and hitting someone with it is called battery.

and old lady's shake.

Amy is coming back to the office. Quick everybody, hide all the loose objects.

Then I have committed assault and battery numerous times over the last year, r298.

My co-worker likewise as she always threatens to "throw something" at me.

I periodically mock her ("I'ma throw something at you!") And proceed to throw Reece cups at her. I don't miss.

The HR Drone is coming for you, R301.

Your names are numbered.

Just wanted to make sure this ended up on my thread-watcher bump.

Funny - I'd already blocked 301 because she is such an ignorant asshole. Dipshit doesn't understand the word intent. If I toss someone a piece of candy that's not the same as someone throwing an object at someone in anger. Through at binder at me in anger and I'll fucking have your job. I've got three former bosses fired for similar shit. Not to brag or anything.

Funny - I'd already blocked 301 because she is such an ignorant asshole. Dipshit doesn't understand the word intent. If I toss someone a piece of candy that's not the same as someone throwing an object at someone in anger. Through at binder at me in anger and I'll fucking have your job. I've got three former bosses fired for similar shit. Not to brag or anything.

If someone throws a Reese’s at you, no harm done. Staplers are metal and weighted, they’re heavy. You could chip a tooth if you hit them wrong. Or break their glasses. That’s assault.

If anyone touches your body in any harmful or offensive way, that is a battery.

R306, there is no way to hit another person right. H.R. should remove you from your work place immediately.

I heard she gave a blob fish to Mitch McConnall for Christmas. She’s a tough ol’ broad.

[305] you must be a real piece of work to have had at least three bosses throw shit at you. When it’s a trend, there’s a reason. Hopefully the next one can pick up a file cabinet.

Though totally loathsome, Moscow Mitch is as adept as Nancy at political matters...

It'll be interesting to watch Nancy since she has to sit behind Twitler when he gives the State of the Union address on Tuesday. I wonder if she'll wear some sort of rebellious pin or jewelry. Perhaps she'll have a sign she holds up which says "He Lies" (since its precedent was broken when someone shouted that out at Obama during one of his speeches). Or maybe she'll give a thumbs down. More likely, she's very classy and will sit stone-faced and mostly remain seated. Perhaps she'll have a "Your Vote Counts" button which she'll keep pointing to.

I'm hoping for more sarcastically OTT applause. All the other Dems should sit on their hands, chew gum, look at their watches, read their Smartphones, doodle, go for breaks, and so forth.

Maybe all the Democrats can pull out Groucho Marx masks since this whole bullshit "trial" the Republicans just gave Trump is a wild farce, as in "The most ridiculous thing I ever heard!".

If only the Democrats played tough like the Republicans instead of high-road Michelle Obama-ing it.

Why SHOULDN'T one of us shout, "You lie!"? Trump does, and anyway, nothing happened to the Republican who yelled at Obama.

Must we rely on a Libertarian Bill Maher or a Republican Rick Wilson to do our job?

Oh, R314, you know that — unfortunately — the Dems always want to take the high road. I agree with Bill Maher that we need to not just say we’re going to kick their asses but actually do it.

If the Dems on Tuesday were to do anything, which I don’t expect, the chatting class commentators would be clutching their pearls and tsk tsking all over the place about how inappropriate it is. Fuck ‘em. Seriously. FUCK. THEM. This is no damn time to play by garden party rules.