• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:31]Nadler blew the articles of impeachment.

L

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Jerry Nadler’s absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment

Why? Well, Democrats have been confused on just what Trump did wrong. All their early talk of a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president turned (after some polling) into charges of “bribery” and “extortion.” Yet all those terms are absent from Nadler’s articles.

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the charges that leftists have been harping on were excluded from the articles.

Schiff contends Trump wanted “sham investigations” from Ukraine. But the inquiry produced not a single person or document suggesting Trump wanted Ukraine to frame his potential 2020 rival.

Exactly. There is not one document or phone conversation that supports schiff in any way and 16 people testified to this fact.

Next we have the made up non-existent charge of contempt of congress. The problem with that is.

Yet the legislative and executive branches fight all the time over compelling such testimony: It’s up to the judicial branch to resolve each battle — but House Democrats declined to go to court this time.

Congress and the executive office are co-equal.
What nadler and the coup are saying is that is a president doesn't give them what they want it is an impeachable offense then making the president sub-servant to every whim that congress wants.

Dems lose. No evidence, bogus articles that have no meaning or evidence to support them.

I think this is Pelosi's way out. Make up horrible confusing articles that do not have public support then get just enough blue dog Democrats to sink the ship.

She knows she has squat and she let schiff sink it again.
 
ludin said:
Jerry Nadler’s absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment

Why? Well, Democrats have been confused on just what Trump did wrong. All their early talk of a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president turned (after some polling) into charges of “bribery” and “extortion.” Yet all those terms are absent from Nadler’s articles.

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the charges that leftists have been harping on were excluded from the articles.

Schiff contends Trump wanted “sham investigations” from Ukraine. But the inquiry produced not a single person or document suggesting Trump wanted Ukraine to frame his potential 2020 rival.

Exactly. There is not one document or phone conversation that supports schiff in any way and 16 people testified to this fact.

Next we have the made up non-existent charge of contempt of congress. The problem with that is.

Yet the legislative and executive branches fight all the time over compelling such testimony: It’s up to the judicial branch to resolve each battle — but House Democrats declined to go to court this time.

Congress and the executive office are co-equal.
What nadler and the coup are saying is that is a president doesn't give them what they want it is an impeachable offense then making the president sub-servant to every whim that congress wants.

Dems lose. No evidence, bogus articles that have no meaning or evidence to support them.

I think this is Pelosi's way out. Make up horrible confusing articles that do not have public support then get just enough blue dog Democrats to sink the ship.

She knows she has squat and she let schiff sink it again.
Click to expand...

I think, at this point, since the entire impeachment was contrived from the beginning, without any basis, they are content to just get a couple of phony articles passed so that they can label him as an impeached President. No matter that their abuse of power gets slapped down by the Senate, all you will hear during the campaign, over and over, is "impeached President", as if he had actually been removed.
 
ludin said:
Jerry Nadler’s absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment

Why? Well, Democrats have been confused on just what Trump did wrong. All their early talk of a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president turned (after some polling) into charges of “bribery” and “extortion.” Yet all those terms are absent from Nadler’s articles.

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the charges that leftists have been harping on were excluded from the articles.

Schiff contends Trump wanted “sham investigations” from Ukraine. But the inquiry produced not a single person or document suggesting Trump wanted Ukraine to frame his potential 2020 rival.

Exactly. There is not one document or phone conversation that supports schiff in any way and 16 people testified to this fact.

Next we have the made up non-existent charge of contempt of congress. The problem with that is.

Yet the legislative and executive branches fight all the time over compelling such testimony: It’s up to the judicial branch to resolve each battle — but House Democrats declined to go to court this time.

Congress and the executive office are co-equal.
What nadler and the coup are saying is that is a president doesn't give them what they want it is an impeachable offense then making the president sub-servant to every whim that congress wants.

Dems lose. No evidence, bogus articles that have no meaning or evidence to support them.

I think this is Pelosi's way out. Make up horrible confusing articles that do not have public support then get just enough blue dog Democrats to sink the ship.

She knows she has squat and she let schiff sink it again.
Click to expand...

New York Post fail.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think, at this point, since the entire impeachment was contrived from the beginning, without any basis, they are content to just get a couple of phony articles passed so that they can label him as an impeached President. No matter that their abuse of power gets slapped down by the Senate, all you will hear during the campaign, over and over, is "impeached President", as if he had actually been removed.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have the votes to pass it.
These articles are so bad. That I don't think 17 of the more moderate blue dog house members will sign on. More so those in the more trump friendly districts.

I think this is Pelosi's out. Support has dropped into the low 40s among independents so she doesn't even have the will of the people behind her.
 
Cardinal said:
New York Post fail.
Click to expand...

More like your post fail as usual you can't counter anything in the article. Which means you lose have a nice day.
 
Anthony60 said:
I think, at this point, since the entire impeachment was contrived from the beginning, without any basis, they are content to just get a couple of phony articles passed so that they can label him as an impeached President. No matter that their abuse of power gets slapped down by the Senate, all you will hear during the campaign, over and over, is "impeached President", as if he had actually been removed.
Click to expand...

Bingo. This was all about dirtying Trump up. The contrivances and the phony-baloney kangaroo court were just to justify labeling Trump as an impeached President before his re-election.
 
Cardinal said:
New York Post fail.
Click to expand...


And a blatantly desperate attempt at trying forgive the Republicans from letting the most corrupt president in history of continuing his and any future presidents illegal activities..
 
As typical none of the resident leftist can actually argue any point. All they can do is ad hominem.

Then they wonder why no one pays attention to anything they say. Old yea because they say nothing.
 
GDViking said:
And a blatantly desperate attempt at trying forgive the Republicans from letting the most corrupt president in history of continuing his and any future presidents illegal activities..
Click to expand...

Just how does the most corrupt president in history lead in all the polls in Democrat states as of yesterday. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin just declared Trump the winner over every Democrat candidate.
 
GDViking said:
And a blatantly desperate attempt at trying forgive the Republicans from letting the most corrupt president in history of continuing his and any future presidents illegal activities..
Click to expand...

So what evidence do you have to show that anything illegal was done.

You saying it is illegal without proof or evidence is called circular logic fallacy.

It is illegal because I said it was illegal is basically what you are doing.
 
I suspect Schiff oversold his smoking gun hoping/assuming the investigation would find something more substantive, which it did not, and he got enough of the caucus is a frenzy that Nancy felt that she had to go along and now she is trying to find some way to dial it all back without being a complete laughing stock.
 
ludin said:
More like your post fail as usual you can't counter anything in the article. Which means you lose have a nice day.
Click to expand...

New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
 
Impeachment has been watered down to appease the utterly useless moderate-conservative Dems. Just FYI.
 
ludin said:
Jerry Nadler’s absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment

Why? Well, Democrats have been confused on just what Trump did wrong. All their early talk of a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president turned (after some polling) into charges of “bribery” and “extortion.” Yet all those terms are absent from Nadler’s articles.

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the charges that leftists have been harping on were excluded from the articles.

Schiff contends Trump wanted “sham investigations” from Ukraine. But the inquiry produced not a single person or document suggesting Trump wanted Ukraine to frame his potential 2020 rival.

Exactly. There is not one document or phone conversation that supports schiff in any way and 16 people testified to this fact.

Next we have the made up non-existent charge of contempt of congress. The problem with that is.

Yet the legislative and executive branches fight all the time over compelling such testimony: It’s up to the judicial branch to resolve each battle — but House Democrats declined to go to court this time.

Congress and the executive office are co-equal.
What nadler and the coup are saying is that is a president doesn't give them what they want it is an impeachable offense then making the president sub-servant to every whim that congress wants.

Dems lose. No evidence, bogus articles that have no meaning or evidence to support them.

I think this is Pelosi's way out. Make up horrible confusing articles that do not have public support then get just enough blue dog Democrats to sink the ship.

She knows she has squat and she let schiff sink it again.
Click to expand...

maybe I am wrong but if true he made no reference to these things it suuuure seems more and more like they are trying to garner this as political tool only , instead of any real chance of removal.


of course that would be bad... for dems.

it's almost like... the media and dems think the MSM is a more powerful influencer than it actually is... or maybe they are hoping... i don't know.
 
Last edited:
Drawdown said:
I suspect Schiff oversold his smoking gun hoping/assuming the investigation would find something more substantive, which it did not, and he got enough of the caucus is a frenzy that Nancy felt that she had to go along and now she is trying to find some way to dial it all back without being a complete laughing stock.
Click to expand...

Yep she fell in a schiff trap again. One day she might get a clue and tell him as house leader he pulls another stunt like that again and she will bake him alive.

This is the second time she has been burned.
 
Cardinal said:
New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem are not arguments they are fallacies for a reason. Again you offer no argument. So have a nice day.
 
ludin said:
Ad hominem are not arguments they are fallacies for a reason. Again you offer no argument. So have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Starting A thread using your masturbation material for a source is embarrassing to watch. Next time use a source that has the veneer of respectability.
 
ludin said:
As typical none of the resident leftist can actually argue any point. All they can do is ad hominem.

Then they wonder why no one pays attention to anything they say. Old yea because they say nothing.
Click to expand...

Hey, they are just revealing their objectivity and the sound reasoning they apply to important issues.
 
ludin said:
Jerry Nadler’s absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment

Why? Well, Democrats have been confused on just what Trump did wrong. All their early talk of a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president turned (after some polling) into charges of “bribery” and “extortion.” Yet all those terms are absent from Nadler’s articles.

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the charges that leftists have been harping on were excluded from the articles.

Schiff contends Trump wanted “sham investigations” from Ukraine. But the inquiry produced not a single person or document suggesting Trump wanted Ukraine to frame his potential 2020 rival.

Exactly. There is not one document or phone conversation that supports schiff in any way and 16 people testified to this fact.

Next we have the made up non-existent charge of contempt of congress. The problem with that is.

Yet the legislative and executive branches fight all the time over compelling such testimony: It’s up to the judicial branch to resolve each battle — but House Democrats declined to go to court this time.

Congress and the executive office are co-equal.
What nadler and the coup are saying is that is a president doesn't give them what they want it is an impeachable offense then making the president sub-servant to every whim that congress wants.

Dems lose. No evidence, bogus articles that have no meaning or evidence to support them.

I think this is Pelosi's way out. Make up horrible confusing articles that do not have public support then get just enough blue dog Democrats to sink the ship.

She knows she has squat and she let schiff sink it again.
Click to expand...

New York Post? Is that like Mad magazine for the illiterate?:lol: No surprise coming from a right-wing, Murdoch-owned tabloid.
 
ludin said:
Jerry Nadler’s absolutely underwhelming articles of impeachment

Why? Well, Democrats have been confused on just what Trump did wrong. All their early talk of a “quid pro quo” in Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s president turned (after some polling) into charges of “bribery” and “extortion.” Yet all those terms are absent from Nadler’s articles.

Quid pro quo, bribery, extortion. All the charges that leftists have been harping on were excluded from the articles.

Schiff contends Trump wanted “sham investigations” from Ukraine. But the inquiry produced not a single person or document suggesting Trump wanted Ukraine to frame his potential 2020 rival.

Exactly. There is not one document or phone conversation that supports schiff in any way and 16 people testified to this fact.

Next we have the made up non-existent charge of contempt of congress. The problem with that is.

Yet the legislative and executive branches fight all the time over compelling such testimony: It’s up to the judicial branch to resolve each battle — but House Democrats declined to go to court this time.

Congress and the executive office are co-equal.
What nadler and the coup are saying is that is a president doesn't give them what they want it is an impeachable offense then making the president sub-servant to every whim that congress wants.

Dems lose. No evidence, bogus articles that have no meaning or evidence to support them.

I think this is Pelosi's way out. Make up horrible confusing articles that do not have public support then get just enough blue dog Democrats to sink the ship.

She knows she has squat and she let schiff sink it again.
Click to expand...


If the democrats can't get even one republican to side with them, the impeachment will look like a huge, time wasting, expensive, joke.
 
Hypothetical said:
maybe I am wrong but if true he made no reference to these things it suuuure seems more and more like they are trying to garner this as political tool only , instead of any real chance of removal.


of course that would be bad... for dems.
Click to expand...
That is all it was to begin with. It was a 2020 campaign prep because they know for a fact that they are running the biggest bunch of losers since Mondale and Dukakis.

The fact is people in general are better off than they were 4 years ago.

They have more money in their pockets there are jobs everywhere. The markets are strong.

They have no reason to change that.

They might hate trumps stupid tweeting but they like the policies that he has enacted.

With the approval on the new trade deal trump needs to concentrate on that. What would be a bigger win is getting this China thing out of the way.
 
Trump is going to be Impeached. Likely not Removed in the Senate but Impeached in the House. In the words of one Mick Mulvaney: "Get over it"

There is a very strong case for Abuse of Office/Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress

I would have preferred there be a Bribery/extortion article as well. But the American public is simply not attentive enough to keep their eye on the ball of the dif between an Impeachment and a Prosecution and IMO it would simply provide too much of an opportunity to get lost in the weeds. I am not even convinced that your garden variety 2019 Senator would not get lost in the weeds. We would be asking the American public and the Senate to distinguish between Bribery as it is written into the Impeachment section of the Constitution and Bribery/extortion in the Federal Code. Ask ten Americans what year the Constitution was written and see how many correct answers you get.

I suspect Senators carry a copy in their pockets so they have a handy reference to use to answer the question.

In fact, I have little doubt that GOP Senators that can actually put a coherent sentence together would try to push the discussion to Bribery as it exists in the Federal Code if there was a Bribery Article in an effort to confuse the public...and it would likely be successful.
 
Last edited:
swing_voter said:
If the democrats can't get even one republican to side with them, the impeachment will look like a huge, time wasting, expensive, joke.
Click to expand...

They are going to have trouble getting their own party to side with them now.

Their are at least 2 opposed already the hearing didn't change their mind. Van drew even said there was no evidence.

There are 31 other democrats running in pro trump areas. They need 16-17 of those 31 to be honest and say there is no evidence to support impeachment. The RNC's is already running ads against them on that issue.

The longer pelosi stalls the full house vote the worse it gets on her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom