Pelosi Insists, 'At This Time We Will Not Be Having a Vote' on Impeachment

[rangerrebew]

Pelosi Insists, 'At This Time We Will Not Be Having a Vote' on Impeachment
 

(CNSNews.com) - Democrats are "going down the path of passing legislation," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told a news conference on Tuesday, stressing once again that the House can legislate even while it investigates President Trump and litigates an impeachment case against him.

She once again ruled out a full House vote on impeachment proceedings.
 
Source URL: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/pelosi-insists-time-we-will-not-be-having-vote-impeachment

[rangerrebew]

She must want some kind of deal with Trump to keep Barr from sending the entire party to prison over the "collusion" fiasco.

[skeeter]

She must want some kind of deal with Trump to keep Barr from sending the entire party to prison over the "collusion" fiasco.

Levin suggested the rats are using this kangaroo court to build something that resembles a case & drive public opinion, then launch the actual impeachment proceeding, if their plan comes together, when things hit a critical mass.

Unthinkable without a cooperative media on board with them.

[Sanguine]

Levin suggested the rats are using this kangaroo court to build something that resembles a case & drive public opinion, then launch the actual impeachment proceeding, if their plan comes together, when things hit a critical mass.

Unthinkable without a cooperative media on board with them.

Yes, that's what they are doing.

[XenaLee]

She must want some kind of deal with Trump to keep Barr from sending the entire party to prison over the "collusion" fiasco.

Now you're just dreaming.  Nah.  It is much more likely, IMO..... that Barr is delaying the release of the latest IG report to coincide with Pelosi's Impeachment endeavor.   Why else would the report be delayed so many times when it should have already been out?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Now you're just dreaming.  Nah.  It is much more likely, IMO..... that Barr is delaying the release of the latest IG report to coincide with Pelosi's Impeachment endeavor.   Why else would the report be delayed so many times when it should have already been out?

That's an interesting idea.

[txradioguy]

She must want some kind of deal with Trump to keep Barr from sending the entire party to prison over the "collusion" fiasco.

She knows she doesn't have the votes in the House and if they do call for a vote on the House floor...it's puts all the Dems on record just 13 months before the election.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

She knows she doesn't have the votes in the House and if they do call for a vote on the House floor...it's puts all the Dems on record just 13 months before the election.

@txradioguy
I think she has the votes, but since people are getting deposed there is no point in calling for a vote now when there is likely to be more 'yea's next week, next month, or next year.  When the rats run out of people willing to testify under subpoena threat, then maybe they'll have a full congressional vote to get the holdouts.

[skeeter]

@txradioguy
I think she has the votes, but since people are getting deposed there is no point in calling for a vote now when there is likely to be more 'yea's next week, next month, or next year.  When the rats run out of people willing to testify under subpoena threat, then maybe they'll have a full congressional vote to get the holdouts.

Is that what they're doing, taking "depositions"?

Depositions are used to gather evidence and information prior to a trial. They're fact-finding missions similar to testifying in court. Attorneys on both sides of the case are present, so they can ask questions and hear the answers. Depositions are done in a question-and-answer format.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
I think she has the votes, but since people are getting deposed there is no point in calling for a vote now when there is likely to be more 'yea's next week, next month, or next year.  When the rats run out of people willing to testify under subpoena threat, then maybe they'll have a full congressional vote to get the holdouts.

@Once-Ler ler

No if she had the votes she'd have done this inquiry the right way instead of the backwards ass way it's being done now.  She put the cart before the horse on this one to protect some vulnerable red state Dems that barely won last time.  She calls for a formal vote and it's an even split for and agaisnt...she'll lose those 35 seats the Dems won two years ago and then some.

ETA:  Not to mention if she had the votes she wouldn't be running this sham inquiry like the did the Obamacare legislation when she completely shut the Republican members of the comittees out of the process.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Is that what they're doing, taking "depositions"?

yes

[XenaLee]

ETA:  Not to mention if she had the votes she wouldn't be running this sham inquiry like the did the Obamacare legislation when she completely shut the Republican members of the comittees out of the process.

Let's face it.   Nancy Pelosi is the atypical totalitarian fascist (commie).   She rules with an iron hand... forget the velvet glove.... and if she were president (shudder, heaven forbid).... she would be a tyrant writ large the likes of which would even stun her fellow Democrats.

[txradioguy]

Let's face it.   Nancy Pelosi is the atypical totalitarian fascist (commie).   She rules with an iron hand... forget the velvet glove.... and if she were president (shudder, heaven forbid).... she would be a tyrant writ large the likes of which would even stun her fellow Democrats.

Yup.  I have no doubt she'd run the WH the same way she runs the House...with many of the same people.

Scratch a Liberal...find a Fascist.

[verga]

She knows she doesn't have the votes in the House and if they do call for a vote on the House floor...it's puts all the Dems on record just 13 months before the election.

The problem is that there are about a dozen Reps that don't want to be on record voting for impeachment, since they are in districts of states that went for Trump. It will put them in  a precarious position for re-election.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

No if she had the votes she'd have done this inquiry the right way instead of the backwards ass way it's being done now.  She put the cart before the horse on this one to protect some vulnerable red state Dems that barely won last time.  She calls for a formal vote and it's an even split for and agaisnt...she'll lose those 35 seats the Dems won two years ago and then some.

@txradioguy
There is no "right" way except your opinion.  I don't hear anyone except Republicans whining about a full house vote to initiate impeachment.  It didn't happen during the Johnson impeachment and the Constitution does not require it.  You require it.  I don't.

ETA:  Not to mention if she had the votes she wouldn't be running this sham inquiry like the did the Obamacare legislation when she completely shut the Republican members of the comittees out of the process.

Republican committee members are allowed to attend depositions and ask questions.  I expect they will be allowed to call witnesses before the final vote to impeach the President.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy
There is no "right" way except your opinion.  I don't hear anyone except Republicans whining about a full house vote to initiate impeachment.  It didn't happen during the Johnson impeachment and the Constitution does not require it.  You require it.  I don't.

Actually it was done that way in Johnson's impecahment...the resolution was submitted to the House for Nixon's but he resigned before the vote and it was done that way wtih Billy Jeff.

On February 24, 1868, three days after Johnson's dismissal of Stanton, the House of Representatives voted 126 to 47 (with 17 members not voting) in favor of a resolution to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

Only this time is San Fran Nan doing things completely different from the precedent set on previous impeachment inquiries.

Republican committee members are allowed to attend depositions and ask questions.  I expect they will be allowed to call witnesses before the final vote to impeach the President.

That's simply not true.  They have been barred from calling their own witnesses or sending out their own subpoenas.  They have to be granted that ability from the chairman and the Dems aren't going to let that happen.

[skeeter]

yes

Rev Cotton Mather style depositions.

OK I'll buy that.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

ACtually it was done that way in Johnson's impecahment

Got a source for that?  I did a search online and I can't find a full house vote to proceed with Johnson's impeachment inquiries.

Once-Ler wrote:                 I expect they will be allowed to call witnesses before the final vote to impeach the President.

That's simply not true.

How do you know what I expect to come true is not truthful?

They have been barred from calling their own witnesses or sending out their own subpoenas.  They have to be granted that ability from the chairman and the Dems aren't going to let that happen.

I expect the Republican committee members WILL be allowed, by the chairman, to call witnesses before the final vote to impeach the President.  By using the word "WILL" I concede the Republican committee members are not presently allowed to call witnesses.

[XenaLee]

Rev Cotton Mather style depositions.

OK I'll buy that.

I see this more as Soviet style government proceeding.   Ironic, considering that the idiot left Democrats always use the word "Constitution" if or when they think it behooves their agenda and actions.  Otherwise, it's a dirty word.

My main question (I have several) is....

how long is the American (We the) people going to put up with this unbridled tyranny coming from the Democrats, America's enemy within?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Rev Cotton Mather style depositions.

OK I'll buy that.

No. Congressional Depositions where Republican committee members and Democrat committee members are allotted equal time to question the witness.

[skeeter]

I see this more as Soviet style government proceeding.   Ironic, considering that the idiot left Democrats always use the word "Constitution" if or when they think it behooves their agenda and actions.  Otherwise, it's a dirty word.

My main question (I have several) is....

how long is the American (We the) people going to put up with this unbridled tyranny coming from the Democrats, America's enemy within?

As incredible as it seems, the sad fact is half of us see nothing at all wrong with whats going on.

[Sanguine]

As incredible as it seems, the sad fact is half of us see nothing at all wrong with whats going on.

"Us"?  You got a frog in your pocket?

[XenaLee]

No. Congressional Depositions where Republican committee members and Democrat committee members are allotted equal time to question the witness.

With all due respect.....

are you merely ignorant of how these proceedings are being handled....

or are you just being dishonest?

Equal time to question the witness???   That would mean that they would actually know who the witness is, wouldn't it?   

"Why don't we know who this individual is?" asked Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), appealing to reporters to dig out the identity of the whistleblower.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-impeachment-inquiry-jim-jordan-schiff-house-intelligence-ukraine-tr-20191015-gpje3i52ffeirpwj6vm667rt2m-story.html

[skeeter]

"Us"?  You got a frog in your pocket?

No frog, just many neighbors willing to lick the hand that feeds them.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

On February 24, 1868, three days after Johnson's dismissal of Stanton, the House of Representatives voted 126 to 47 (with 17 members not voting) in favor of a resolution to impeach the president for high crimes and misdemeanors.

@txradioguy
Got it. Thanx.  It didn't show up in the post I responded to.  I stand corrected but again the Constitution doesn't require it, and precedence is important until it isn't like the Senate nuclear option.