From another perspective, Pelosi is keeping the Inquiry from being openly voted on to protect her members that are up for reelection in 2020. She doesn't want those who barely beat their Republican opponents in red-leaning districts to be forced to vote for something their constituents mostly know is a lie. If those districts helped elect Trump, they can't rely on TDS to give them the win in 2020.  Voting for a bogus inquiry based on bogus (not unlawful) scandals will backfire on them.

Also, once the inquiry is official, assuming the vote goes their way, the process becomes less one-sided. Republican members can then call their own witnesses, cross-examine the Dem's witnesses, and attend all the hearings.  Without the vote, this is nothing more than another partisan, political witch hunt.

Yes, Pelosi is trying to protect those House members from going on record for impeachment. Which is why that up until now, they have not had the numbers to approve of and perform an official impeachment inquiry. Pelosi might be losing power as speaker but she isn't stupid. She is playing the naive into a tizzy over impeachment with out actually performing an official impeachment inquiry. It is sad that they have to play out this Kabuki Theater in order to try and win the next election on the merits of your policies. 

From another perspective, Pelosi is keeping the Inquiry from being openly voted on to protect her members that are up for reelection in 2020. She doesn't want those who barely beat their Republican opponents in red-leaning districts to be forced to vote for something their constituents mostly know is a lie. If those districts helped elect Trump, they can't rely on TDS to give them the win in 2020.  Voting for a bogus inquiry based on bogus (not unlawful) scandals will backfire on them.

You mean like how they delayed the Mueller report until the elections were done.  He finished his report months before it was released.  Same stuff, different day.  Same people being fooled again and again because they don't want to see the truth.

Yes, Pelosi is trying to protect those House members from going on record for impeachment. Which is why that up until now, they have not had the numbers to approve of and perform an official impeachment inquiry. 1) Pelosi might be losing power as speaker but she isn't stupid. 2) She is playing the naive into a tizzy over impeachment with out actually performing an official impeachment inquiry. It is sad that they have to play out this Kabuki Theater in order to try and win the next election on the merits of your policies. 

1) I think you just turned on rk with that statement.    
2) And we (no I) have seen that very effect. . .

After 8 years of Obama compared to only 2-3 years of Trump, and the House being in Dem hands for the past calendar year, the Democrats have demonstrated they can't do their jobs effectively with, or without, control of all 3 branches.

It's as if they all believe their job is to maintain power by getting themselves reelected, and everything else is just a campaign issue.

After 8 years of Obama compared to only 2-3 years of Trump, and the House being in Dem hands for the past calendar year, the Democrats have demonstrated they can't do their jobs effectively with, or without, control of all 3 branches.

It's as if they all believe their job is to maintain power by getting themselves reelected, and everything else is just a campaign issue.

More like 1.5 years.

Isn't a burger without meat a nothingburger, also? Just a thought since burger is short for hamburger which is the principal ingredient in a burger. Just like with having more than 2 sexes, the line is blurring. 

Maybe your thinking of a "Wish" sandwich where you have 2 pieces of bread and "Wish" you had some meat in between them. 

Maybe your thinking of a "Wish" sandwich where you have 2 pieces of bread and "Wish" you had some meat in between them. 

What kinds of "wish sandwiches" are you used to?   

 

 

My friend asked if I wanted a jam sandwich.

He took 2 pieces of bread and jammed them together.

Romania scandal next. Which fish gonna get hooked.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Maybe your thinking of a "Wish" sandwich where you have 2 pieces of bread and "Wish" you had some meat in between them. 

Romania scandal next. Which fish gonna get hooked.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree about Romania. But who is next? 

I actually have something new to add to this. There is a rumor running around that there never was a "Whistleblower". Plus never were additional ones either. That it was just another made up accusation/form from Schiff that was sent to the IG for confirmation. If this is true, then I am wrong this is a nothingburger. It is actually an illegal act by Adam Schiff who is probably the biggest liar in the House. So this could play out as something more than it originally appeared.

I don’t usually quote myself but I felt it applicable when I read this article from Ben Shapiro:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-republicans-request-adam-schiff-bring-whistleblower-forward-for-questioning?utm_campaign=ben_shapiro_report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_insiders&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9b8WWzVED9_RA41iMGpSkiji5A2bBsPWDunKjo65TB5NWlEf9C8jwqhjLj40eCIbjSm-aJOoDx8ZxFiceJ-WET9_jKDA&_hsmi=78520739

“The congressmen then seemingly took a page from House Democrats by concluding in their letter: “Your failure to arrange for the Committees to receive this testimony shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”

It’s obvious now that something is up and the actual existence of the WB is now in play.

I don’t usually quote myself but I felt it applicable when I read this article from Ben Shapiro:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-republicans-request-adam-schiff-bring-whistleblower-forward-for-questioning?utm_campaign=ben_shapiro_report&utm_medium=email&utm_source=housefile&utm_content=non_insiders&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9b8WWzVED9_RA41iMGpSkiji5A2bBsPWDunKjo65TB5NWlEf9C8jwqhjLj40eCIbjSm-aJOoDx8ZxFiceJ-WET9_jKDA&_hsmi=78520739

“The congressmen then seemingly took a page from House Democrats by concluding in their letter: “Your failure to arrange for the Committees to receive this testimony shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.”

It’s obvious now that something is up and the actual existence of the WB is now in play.

They are trying to "Kavenaugh" Trump -- accusations are enough to smear.  No need to prove anything.

They hope to drag this out through the coming election.  it plays to the voters who gave the Dems the House in 2018 on the promise that Trump would be impeached.  If they waited for evidence of an actual crime, impeachment would never happen.

That PDF was authored by Schiff.  He's been lying about Trump since Trump won in 2016. Every time he was in front of a camera, he swore there was irrefutable evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, even after the Mueller report was released. He also read a fake transcript of the US-Ukrainian phone call into the official record of the hearing.  He deserves to be removed from his chairmanship on that committee for that alone.

Schiff's accountability has certainly been called into question and I would probably agree that his dishonesty should be grounds to remove him from his chairmanship.

You want to talk about facts and reliable sources, and you post a letter from Schiff?  That's not the COMPLAINT.  That's Schiff's synopsis of what he wants so badly to be true.

That's not the complaint? It sure looks like the complaint, it is written in the first person from the view of the whistleblower so I am not sure your exact objection. Schiff may have helped the whistleblower wright it but that does not mean its not the whistleblower's statement. I understand it is not the official complaint form that was used but it still appears to be from the whistleblower. So how do you support you suggestion that it is Schiff's statement and not the whistleblowers?

Apparently you think the complaint was altered with additional information by the firsthand "informant".  That's not how a complaint works.  So, your entire firsthand-secondhand explanation has no relevance to whether there was MORE IN THE COMPLAINT THAN THE TRANSCRIPT.

The complaint was altered? Not sure what you are referring to there. As I told you, and supported with a link, the IG stated that the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge.

You really can't wrap your head around basic logic, nor answer a basic question, can you?

You are the one avoiding the tough points, not me. How about you address the ones I pointed out first, then we can talk. I won't hold my breath because you always avoid the ones that disprove your arguments. You avoided addressing the fact that the IG stated there was firsthand knowledge and you ignored where I showed that it was a false claim that regulations about secondhand information being changed just before the complaint. Those two facts disprove your complaints about the complaint being secondhand. I give you facts and you avoid them.

But you are more concerned with what Trump MIGHT have done than what the Trump-haters in Congress ARE doing.

Nope, justice is blind. You are the one jumping to Trump's defense while all I want to do is let the process play out and evaluate the whistleblower's complaint. How about some integrity for the truth.

Schiff's accountability has certainly been called into question and I would probably agree that his dishonesty should be grounds to remove him from his chairmanship.

That's not the complaint? It sure looks like the complaint, it is written in the first person from the view of the whistleblower so I am not sure your exact objection. Schiff may have helped the whistleblower wright it but that does not mean its not the whistleblower's statement. I understand it is not the official complaint form that was used but it still appears to be from the whistleblower. So how do you support you suggestion that it is Schiff's statement and not the whistleblowers?

The complaint was altered? Not sure what you are referring to there. As I told you, and supported with a link, the IG stated that the whistleblower had firsthand knowledge.

You are the one avoiding the tough points, not me. How about you address the ones I pointed out first, then we can talk. I won't hold my breath because you always avoid the ones that disprove your arguments. You avoided addressing the fact that the IG stated there was firsthand knowledge and you ignored where I showed that it was a false claim that regulations about secondhand information being changed just before the complaint. Those two facts disprove your complaints about the complaint being secondhand. I give you facts and you avoid them.

Nope, justice is blind. You are the one jumping to Trump's defense while all I want to do is let the process play out and evaluate the whistleblower's complaint. How about some integrity for the truth.

What Process???

Secret meetings?
Excluding everyone in the other party from hearings, reading transcripts, knowing who the whistleblower is?
Refusing to hold a House vote to formally open the inquiry?

This is a "process" the way the Star Chamber was a process.  If you don't understand the reference, it was a Michael Douglas movie.  If you still don't understand the parallel, Google is your friend.

Ukraine servers "crashed". Nuthin to see here...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Until there is a vote and the rules governing the inquiry agreed upon/ratified, there is NO PROCESS.  It's a partisan witch hunt being conducted in the dark with only the opinions and select quotes taken out of context leaked to smear Trump.

But, Orange Man Bad.  Dems in Congress have been screaming for impeachment before, during and now after the Mueller probe.  Why does anyone think they are serious about following any rational or fair process?

Until there is a vote and the rules governing the inquiry agreed upon/ratified, there is NO PROCESS.  It's a partisan witch hunt being conducted in the dark with only the opinions and select quotes taken out of context leaked to smear Trump.

But, Orange Man Bad.  Dems in Congress have been screaming for impeachment before, during and now after the Mueller probe.  Why does anyone think they are serious about following any rational or fair process?

This is why things are going to start happening.  This is nothing more than an attempted coup.  No real sources or intel.  Just made up stories.  Trump is the most vetted politician in history.  Many investigations and nothing sticks.

Nothing burger, still. The Dems have moved on from this farce, the MSM has moved on. There is nothing here. And unless there is proof Schiff made up the WB, there is still nothing here. Trump releasing the transcript did two things. It proved that Schiff’s statement was all a lie for which the Repubs tried to have him censured. And it proved that nothing the WB could ever say would either be a lie or would corroborate the transcript. N O T H I N G B U R G E R 

Sexual assault allegations next, watch.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk