Nancy Pelosi hopes impeachment-related vote will bust Republicans' 'illegitimate' process narrative,

[mystery-ak]

Nancy Pelosi hopes impeachment-related vote will bust Republicans' 'illegitimate' process narrative, Brit Hume says
 By Charles Creitz | Fox News

    A vote to set the ground rules for the impeachment inquiry process is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's way of busting a key Republican argument, according to Brit Hume.

Pelosi, D-Calif., scheduled a vote to establish parameters of the Trump impeachment inquiry as a way to stop the GOP from claiming it's an "illegitimate process," Hume said Monday on "Special Report."

"I think that what she's doing is, she's trying to take away the Republican argument that this whole thing is tainted because it's the product of an illegitimate process -- in part because there was never a full House vote to commence the impeachment inquiry," he added.

Hume noted Pelosi's planned roll call wouldn't be that type of vote either.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-vote-brit-hume

[Idiot]

Nancy Pelosi hopes impeachment-related vote will bust Republicans' 'illegitimate' process narrative, Brit Hume says
 By Charles Creitz | Fox News

    A vote to set the ground rules for the impeachment inquiry process is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's way of busting a key Republican argument, according to Brit Hume.

Pelosi, D-Calif., scheduled a vote to establish parameters of the Trump impeachment inquiry as a way to stop the GOP from claiming it's an "illegitimate process," Hume said Monday on "Special Report."

"I think that what she's doing is, she's trying to take away the Republican argument that this whole thing is tainted because it's the product of an illegitimate process -- in part because there was never a full House vote to commence the impeachment inquiry," he added.

Hume noted Pelosi's planned roll call wouldn't be that type of vote either.

more
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-vote-brit-hume

[Cyber Liberty]

That rather depends on what's in the Rule, doesn't it?

[Free Vulcan]

Wouldn't it have been smarter to start with that first rather than covering their butts after the fact? Morons.

[OfTheCross]

Wouldn't it have been smarter to start with that first rather than covering their butts after the fact? Morons.

According to Judge Nopalitano on Fox News the democrats were already following the rules created under the last Republican majority Congress.

this is just so the idiots now stop complaining.

[Jazzhead]

this is just so the idiots now stop complaining.

Is it just partisanship or do you really have no respect for due process rights? 

I am no fan of the President but I revere our republican (small "r") form of government.   As far as I'm concerned my opposition to the kangaroo court has little to do with defending the President and everything to do with defending the rights of the 63 million who voted for him.   

[verga]

According to Judge Nopalitano on Fox News the democrats were already following the rules created under the last Republican majority Congress.

this is just so the idiots now stop complaining.

Nappy has turned into a whiney RINO

[Cyber Liberty]

According to Judge Nopalitano on Fox News the democrats were already following the rules created under the last Republican majority Congress.

this is just so the idiots now stop complaining.

To which "idiots" are you referring, @OfTheCross?

[Victoria33]

That rather depends on what's in the Rule, doesn't it?

@Cyber Liberty

These are the rules developed by the Rules Committee, to follow for the committees to present the evidence to the entire House including defining Trump's due process.

[skeeter]

According to Judge Nopalitano on Fox News the democrats were already following the rules created under the last Republican majority Congress.

this is just so the idiots now stop complaining.

This is in response to the senate letter basically calling results of their bogus 'impeachment process' dead on arrival should it actually get as far as the senate. As it should.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

These are the rules developed by the Rules Committee, to follow for the committees to present the evidence to the entire House including defining Trump's due process.

Correct.  So, in theory, the Rats could vote in a rule that says Schiff's secret interviews in the basement SCIF are fine and dandy.  Like I said, let's see what's in there before we start claiming "We got 'im now!"

[Bigun]

Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”. The resolution is currently being written by Lawfare. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.

This is a House vote to show support for Pelosi’s previous unilateral decree. Right now the rules committee is adding language to the resolution that will provide additional one-sided support for a completely partisan process.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/28/pelosi-calls-house-vote-to-affirm-speaker-impeachment-inquiry-the-house-never-authorized/

As always, worth clicking through to read the entire article at CTH.

Money quote:

Here’s where it gets interesting.

The Thursday vote will likely have a rule process to conjoin the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) with the House “official impeachment inquiry”.

Why now? Because the HJC just won a legal ruling from DC Judge Beryl Howell granting the Judiciary Committee formal impeachment authority. {Go Deep}

Lawfare is hoping that through this Thursday vote scheme they will be able to twist the legal process into providing their House inquiry judicial enforcement authority, or punishment possible for the executive not complying with a House committee subpoena. They are hoping to achieve this by bringing in the House Judiciary Committee and the judicial enforcement authority they were just granted by Judge Howell.

[Cyber Liberty]

Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”. The resolution is currently being written by Lawfare. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.

This is a House vote to show support for Pelosi’s previous unilateral decree. Right now the rules committee is adding language to the resolution that will provide additional one-sided support for a completely partisan process.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/28/pelosi-calls-house-vote-to-affirm-speaker-impeachment-inquiry-the-house-never-authorized/

As always, worth clicking through to read the entire article at CTH.

Money quote:

Here’s where it gets interesting.

Yeah, that's what I thought.  More bullshit thrown up in the air for the Nevers to ingest.

[OfTheCross]

To which "idiots" are you referring, @OfTheCross?

The Republicans in Congress claiming that the process isn't above board when all the Dems are doing is following the rules created by Republicans.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/24/andrew-napolitano-fox-closed-door-rules-gop-2015/

[skeeter]

The Republicans in Congress claiming that the process isn't above board when all the Dems are doing is following the rules created by Republicans.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/24/andrew-napolitano-fox-closed-door-rules-gop-2015/

Oh brother. These rules are for bona fide classified need to know hearings. This Ukraine BS doesn't qualify.

Take it somewhere else. You aren't fooling anyone here.

[Jazzhead]

Oh brother. These rules are for bona fide classified need to know hearings. This Ukraine BS doesn't qualify.

Take it somewhere else. You aren't fooling anyone here.

And don't forget there's no cover-up here.   The text of the notorious phone call has been released to the public so all can see and judge for themselves.   

[skeeter]

And don't forget there's no cover-up here.   The text of the notorious phone call has been released to the public so all can see and judge for themselves.

Its just more obfuscation by the rats. Control the media narrative one day at a time and tomorrow will take care of itself.

With 95% of the news media running interference for them contradicting themselves is never a concern

[Jazzhead]

Its just more obfuscation by the rats. Control the media narrative one day at a time and tomorrow will take care of itself.

With 95% of the news media running interference for them contradicting themselves is never a concern

That's right.  Which is why we need to think creatively about the way ahead, because we face systemic disadvantages.   I don't want to see Trump as the nominee not because I wish him any ill, but because I want to finish what he started.   

[EdJames]

That's right.  Which is why we need to think creatively about the way ahead, because we face systemic disadvantages.   I don't want to see Trump as the nominee not because I wish him any ill, but because I want to finish what he started.

Listen, pal, Mark Sanford isn't going to cut it...

I get it that you think that Trump can no longer carry the day....

Here's the deal, you convince him to step aside and I will rise to run in his place...  you can count on me....  I'll never let you down.....

 

[austingirl]

That's right.  Which is why we need to think creatively about the way ahead, because we face systemic disadvantages.   I don't want to see Trump as the nominee not because I wish him any ill, but because I want to finish what he started.

Who in the Republican party could or would finish what Trump started? No one. Most are swamp creatures enriching themselves and their families at the public trough. The Republicans didn't support Trump's agenda of ending Bammycare or building the wall when they had control of Congress and most still don't support his agenda.

[skeeter]

That's right.  Which is why we need to think creatively about the way ahead, because we face systemic disadvantages.   I don't want to see Trump as the nominee not because I wish him any ill, but because I want to finish what he started.

Undercutting Trump at this point is insane. I LIKE what he's doing, among other things he's addressing the systemic disadvantages to which you refer.

Why would I want to do that.

[Wingnut]

Listen, pal, Mark Sanford isn't going to cut it...

I get it that you think that Trump can no longer carry the day....

Here's the deal, you convince him to step aside and I will rise to run in his place...  you can count on me....  I'll never let you down.....

 

WTH is it with his fascination with Fred Sanford.  Jazz got a junk fetish?

[EdJames]

WTH is it with his fascination with Fred Sanford.  Jazz got a junk fetish?

Hurr durr, we both got it wrong...  it is Lamont that he has taken a fancy to....

 

[Wingnut]

Hurr durr, we both got it wrong...  it is Lamont that he has taken a fancy to....

 

Maybe!  But Aunt Ester was a handsome women if Jazz plays for the home team!

[libertybele]

Listen, pal, Mark Sanford isn't going to cut it...

I get it that you think that Trump can no longer carry the day....

Here's the deal, you convince him to step aside and I will rise to run in his place...  you can count on me....  I'll never let you down.....

 

    I'd vote for ya in a heartbeat!