Democrats: Impeachment Taking Longer Expected

By Pie Guevara

Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton. So there!

 

How disappointing! And here I thought there were multiple obvious reasons for impeachment. Ostensibly clear, straight forward and blatantly obvious reasons. This is no longer the case?

“Every time we have a deposition, it leads us in a slightly different direction,” Rep. Gerry Connolly, Democrat, Virginia.

The timeline will depend on the truth line, and that’s what we’re looking for,” chief 3rd rate headhunter Nancy Pelosi.

“I think it’s more like between Thanksgiving and Christmas” for the end of the investigation, said an unidentified Democrat involved in the probe.”After that, it’s a strategic decision about when to bring it to the floor.”

“Putting an artificial time limit is the wrong way to run a credible investigation,” stated another unidentified Democrat.

Seriously folks, given Trump’s obviously impeachable offenses (as the Democrats and their media lickspittles would have us believe) why are they dragging their feet? A strategic decision?

Get on with it Democrats. What is this weasel worded nonsense? Impeachment is now a “probe” and a “strategic decision?” What happened to the clear cut evidence? What happened to the “credible investigation?

IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Democrats: Impeachment Taking Longer Expected

  1. Peggy says:

    LOL – Priceless!

    Clinton Impeachment.
    Joe Biden in 1998:

    “Even if the President should be impeached, history is going to question whether or not this was just a partisan lynching…”

  2. Libby says:

    Ah, so many people to talk to, so little time. Who knew there was a Pentagon official charged with overseeing policy toward Ukraine?

    You just be glad they seem to be keeping it to Ukraine, and not messing in all the other myriad instances of The Donald’s dubious regard for the emoluments clause in our Constitution.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Re Lippy “Blah, blah, blah, blah…”

      Tell your people to quit pussy footing around and bring some charges already. Everything else is bloviating just like every comment you make on Post Scripts. All this hot air and impeachment proceedings secrecy is a load of pussy footing political nonsense. IMPEACH TRUMP!

      • RHT447 says:

        “IMPEACH TRUMP!”

        Oh my, yes. To coin a phrase, “Please, make my day”.

        This is hilarious. Lippy is just panting to get the “dirt” out on President Trump. It seems the Dems beg to differ. They have the whole thing locked down so tight in their star chamber that the Republicans had to storm the place in an effort to crack the blackout.

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/republicans-storm-impeachment-inquiry-deposition-laura-cooper/index.html

      • Libby says:

        “All this hot air and impeachment proceedings secrecy ….”

        Would you please not repeat BS fed you by your dubious purveyors of “news”. According to House Rules, testimony before a committee is heard by members of that committee, nobody else. And if they don’t want to have reporters, they don’t have to.

        And committee crashing is just a lot of grand-standing for ignorant constituents. Shouldn’t you be pissed? … you got elected representatives who count upon and exploit said ignorance. I’d be pissed.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Dear completely off base SFB loon from some insane progressive hell. I have said nothing about what a committee can and can not do. Of course the committee can completely lock down any communications of proceedings as the Rats you vote for have chosen to do! SHEESH, what a dope!

          Impeachment proceedings — even in committee — have historically been carried out with some reasonable disclosure not merely filtered by deliberate, politically motivated leaks trying to control a politically motivated narrative.

          Re: “And committee crashing is just a lot of grand-standing for ignorant constituents. Shouldn’t you be pissed?”

          Huh??? Where have I mentioned, called for, approved, or supported “committee crashing” and why would I be pissed? Several Republican legislators arguing for transparency tried to enter a secured committee room and in doing so derailed a scheduled impeachment inquiry deposition. This is wonderfully amusing and excellent political theater. What is your problem? I wish I had seen it on C-SPAN. Heck, I wish I had been there to see it in person.

          Lippy, I seriously suggest you stop taking whatever cocktail mix of street drugs you ingest daily and go back to your prescribed medications. You seem to be so angry and mixed up about so many things.

          Remember: I AM ON YOUR SIDE! IMPEACH TRUMP! DO IT!

          • Chris says:

            Of course the committee can completely lock down any communications of proceedings as the Rats you vote for have chosen to do!

            This is exactly what Republicans did in the Benghazi hearings. You didn’t have a problem with it then.

            http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/why-the-house-gop-pretending-care-about-the-impeachment-process

            Huh??? Where have I mentioned, called for, approved, or supported “committee crashing” and why would I be pissed? Several Republican legislators arguing for transparency tried to enter a secured committee room and in doing so derailed a scheduled impeachment inquiry deposition. This is wonderfully amusing and excellent political theater. What is your problem? I wish I had seen it on C-SPAN. Heck, I wish I had been there to see it in person.

            Your argument here is that Libby is insane to think that you would approve of the committee crashing, but also you completely approve of the committee crashing.

            So this is the level of argumentation you’ve been reduced to.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            As usual poor Chris Souza is in a muddle. Just because I say I enjoy and am amused by the political theater surrounding the Schiff Kangaroo Court does not mean I endorse it.

            Chris, please stop being such a polemic twit, it gets tiresome.

            On second thought, don’t. While watching you make a complete ass of yourself on a daily basis is low comedy, it is still comedy and people need a laugh.

          • Chris says:

            Some facts on this “wonderfully amusing and excellent political theater” that you won’t hear from Breitbart or any of the president’s other cheerleaders:

            “By the way, of today’s mob, 27 voted for the rules keeping them out. 12 could have been in the room if they wanted, but thought their stunt was more important. 1 is permabanned from all committee meetings because he’s an open white supremacist.”

            https://twitter.com/RulesLawStudent/status/1187140380862701568?s=20

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Souza’s fantasies about me extend to the Twitterverse! The “Brietbart” reference is pretty funny coming from a person who feasts daily on a steady stream of propaganda from left-wing Democratic party media lickspittles.

            It was wonderfully amusing and excellent political theater and I did not have to go to Brietbart (which I almost never read) to get that opinion. It is entirely my own.

            What has so upset Mr. Souza? That I find politics amusing and entertaining? SHEESH, Chris should seriously consider getting a life. It must be difficult to play the hate filled progressive fascist troll day after day. Try tossing your bait elsewhere Souza, you will only be mocked for the pompous fool you are in these pages.

          • Chris says:

            As usual poor Chris Souza is in a muddle. Just because I say I enjoy and am amused by the political theater surrounding the Schiff Kangaroo Court does not mean I endorse it.

            Then condemn it. You won’t, because you don’t care about national security or the legal process at all.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            WHAT??? Why on Earth would I “condemn” either the kangaroo court or legislators who stage a protest? Mr. Souza needs to stop taking whatever cocktail of street drugs he is ingesting and go back to his prescribed medications. For Souza to demand that I “condemn” anything is so absurd it enters into the realm of the surreal. For him to declare that I do not care for national security or the legal process “at all” is ludicrous.

            Souza needs to take a chill pill and calm down before he bursts a vein in his neck. Or don’t and keep on making an ass of himself stamping his feet in Post Scripts.

          • Peggy says:

            Some of Benghazi’s hearings were highly classified and required behind closed meetings. Schift has stated his impeachment meetings are NOT classified because they contain no high security information.

            Big difference between Hillary and Obama leaving four Americans to die to cover up the military arms, big money making business, being shipped out of the Annex facility through Turkey to Syria and ISIS vs undoing a presidential election that 130 million voters participated in and have the constitutional right to know what is going on in Schift’s Star Chamber.

          • Chris says:

            Why on Earth would I “condemn” either the kangaroo court or legislators who stage a protest?

            I explained to you why this protest was wrong and how it violated national security. You could also easily, to use your words, “do your own homework” and find out from national security experts why bringing phones into the SCIF is a danger. That you ignore all this is enough to prove that you do not care about national security. You think it’s just hilarious that a group of Republicans violated protocol and endangered national security because it owned the libs. That’s all you really care about.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Well then Souza, laugh away.

  3. Chris says:

    None of the quotes in your article show that impeachment is taking “longer [than] expected,” because you didn’t bother to compare them to any previous expectations.

    The process is actually moving quite fast. Half of all Americans already support impeachment and removal: https://nypost.com/2019/10/22/over-half-of-americans-back-trumps-impeachment-removal-from-office-poll/

    It will be interesting to see how support grows when the Doral story, the Ukraine story, and the Turkey story all solidify into one narrative: a story of a president who consistently sells out the national interest and abuses his office to enrich himself, coddle dictators and harm his political enemies.

    Ambassador Taylor’s testimony yesterday was devastating, which is why no one here was talking about it. Not only was an investigation into Joe Biden a condition of military aid, a *public declaration* of such an investigation by President Zelensky was the ask. Meanwhile, it was reported today that Trump was proposing cuts to funds for actual anti-corruption programs in Ukraine. So the hilarious notion that Trump only wanted Biden investigated because he genuinely cares about corruption further imploded, as if anyone actually believed that in the first place. Trump was asking for a political favor in return for military aid so Ukraine could defend itself against Russia. That is the definition of corruption and abuse of office, and the Founders would be rolling in their graves if they saw you defending it.

    All Dems are waiting for is for there to be enough public outrage that congressional Republicans become more afraid of the public’s judgment than they are of Trump. Since they will never put country over party on principle, we have to weaponize their cowardice against them. With half of Americans supporting impeachment and removal, hopefully enough Republicans will get the message soon enough and we can end this nightmare.

  4. RHT447 says:

    Interesting article.

    “House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced impeachment proceedings against the president just three hours after stating in a speech that she would not. Speaker Pelosi had zero evidence, cause, stated reason and lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so, but announced it anyway.

    Strangely enough…and what caught my attention… Mitt Romney jumped on the “Impeach Trump” train that same day.

    How did Nancy go from “There will be no impeachment proceedings,” that morning in New York to announcing impeachment proceedings that afternoon when she got back to Washington, DC? ”

    Link–

    https://www.pickeringpost.com/howellwoltz/12862/dead-men-dont-need-impeachment-swamp-in-panic-trump-in-danger/

  5. Chris says:

    lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so

    There is no required vote to launch an impeachment inquiry.

    As for no evidence, case, or stated reason, LOL. I’ve documented all of the above many times so far on this blog. The response has been silence. No one here has rebutted or defended the fact that Trump abused his office by asking President Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into his political rival while tying that to military aide to the country.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Ah yes, the old LOL debate tactic coupled to the silence jab means “I RULE!” I would advise Mr. Souza to rise above his puerile, cringe inducing 3rd grade schoolyard bully mentality and consider that there may be times when his idiotic, presumptive, bloviation may not deserve an answer. This may come as a surprise to Souza but neither the authors nor the comment guests of this blog are obligated to interact with an internet troll blowhard.

      In any case, whether Trump actually tied military aide quid pro quo to force Zelensky to investigate Dirty Joe and his dirty son remains to be established by the impeachment probe, a vote by Congress and, perhaps, ultimately in a court of law. Zelensky himself has stated that he felt no pressure and that he did not even know military aid was being held up (for whatever reason).

      • Chris says:

        I’m ignoring the personal attacks this time and going directly for the actual, substantive rebuttal:

        Zelensky himself has stated that he felt no pressure and that he did not even know military aid was being held up (for whatever reason).

        Your information is outdated. This was reported yesterday:

        KYIV, Ukraine — More than two months before the phone call that launched the impeachment inquiry against President Trump, Ukraine’s newly elected leader was already worried about pressure from the U.S. president to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

        Volodymyr Zelensky gathered a small group of advisors on May 7 in the capital of Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, for an investigation and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting.

        They spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the issue, which has roiled U.S.-Ukrainian relations.

        The meeting came before Zelensky was inaugurated but about two weeks after Trump called to offer his congratulations on the night of the Ukrainian leader’s April 21 election.

        The full details of what the two leaders discussed in that Easter Sunday phone call have never been publicly disclosed, and it is not clear whether Trump explicitly asked for an investigation of Biden and his son Hunter.

        The three people’s recollections differ on whether Zelensky specifically cited that first call with Trump as the source of his unease. But their accounts all show the Ukrainian president-elect was wary of Trump’s push for an investigation into the former vice president and Hunter Biden’s business dealings.

        Either way, the newly elected leader of a country wedged between Russia and U.S.-aligned NATO members knew early on that vital military support might depend on whether he was willing to choose a side in an American political tussle. A former comedian who won office on promises to clean up corruption, Zelensky’s first major foreign policy test came not from his enemy Russia, but rather from the country’s most important ally, the United States.

        https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-23/ukrainian-leader-felt-trump-pressure-before-taking-office

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Re a Chris Souza comment quoting me —

    Me: Of course the committee can completely lock down any communications of proceedings as the Rats you vote for have chosen to do!

    Souza: This is exactly what Republicans did in the Benghazi hearings. You didn’t have a problem with it then.

    Dear idiot, I don’t have a problem with it now! I am absolutely delighted that Democrats have chosen to operate their Soviet style kangaroo court in secrecy.

    • Chris says:

      Calling people “Rats” for doing a thing would seem to indicate to a rational reader that you have a problem with them doing that thing. But you depend on the applause of irrational readers.

      This is no more “Soviet-style” than what goes on in every grand jury proceeding in America. Andrew Napolitano explained that on Fox News today. Will you listen?

      https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1187339967300812800?s=20

      • Pie Guevara says:

        But this is not a Grand Jury proceeding. Nevertheless you Rat jackass, I am all for how the Soviet style Kangaroo court is proceeding. I welcome it you idiot. What part of that do you not understand?

        • Chris says:

          It is not a grand jury proceeding, but it is similar to one in that no charges have been brought yet, and the purpose is to see whether charges are appropriate. This is not an impeachment trial, which would be held in the Senate. Napolitano explained all of this. So your “Soviet-style” charge remains groundless, hysterical, and misleading.

          • Pie Guevara says:

            This is pretty funny, Souza calling me groundless, hysterical and misleading. Souza who presumes guilt before the processes have worked their course.

          • Chris says:

            Souza who presumes guilt before the processes have worked their course.

            I don’t remember you having this problem with anyone here who presumed that Hillary Clinton was guilty of any number of crimes before the process had worked its course in the hearings and investigations into her conduct. I have every right to “presume guilt” with the evidence we already have, including the damning transcript of the phone call, the testimony of multiple witnesses, and Trump’s record of similar behavior. I am not a member of a jury nor am I a judge, so there’s nothing wrong with me presuming guilt in this matter. You don’t even believe that presuming guilt is bad, or you would have condemned the chants of “Lock her up!” So why are you pretending to?

          • Pie Guevara says:

            Poor Mr. Souza is still in a muddle. Now he thinks I have a “problem” with his presumption of guilt? Souza may presume all he wants, have no problem with it.

            Hilliary has yet to be made to answer for her crimes and I doubt she ever will. Small matter given the self-inflicted punishment of her three year career move into laughable irrelevancy.

    • Chris says:

      Ok. He is still right when he says that these inquiries are similar to a grand jury proceeding and that the rules say they can be held in secret with the relevant committees (made of up both Republicans and Democrats). You won’t find a credible constitutional law expert who disagrees.

      • Peggy says:

        I found three who disagree with the Pelosi impeachment process.

        Jonathan Turley:
        https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/464492-casual-or-cowardly-pelosi-takes-dangerous-road-to-impeachment

        “The many opposing statements by Pelosi are given particular significance by the Justice Department, which observed, “Most prominently, the Speaker of the House has been emphatic that the investigation is not a true impeachment proceeding” and quoted her statement a few weeks ago that Democrats were “not even close” to moving on impeachment.

        These statements undermine an already tough case for the House, as Pelosi knows. The impeachments of Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were investigated in clearly defined phases, each the subject of a resolution passed by the entire House. Indeed, the House Judiciary Committee chairman in the Richard Nixon impeachment expressly stated that a “necessary step” has “always been” the passage of an inquiry resolution. There is also an ongoing debate over whether an actual impeachment investigation is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e), which governs the secrecy of grand jury material. The House is asking the court to not only treat its investigation as such a proceeding but to do so when House leaders are also contradicting that characterization.

        I did not believe tweets by Trump should have been given much weight in lower court decisions on the immigration case. Indeed, he ultimately prevailed before the Supreme Court. I would also be inclined to disregard the statements by House leaders in accepting this as an impeachment investigation. Yet, that still would leave the difficult question of what constitutes a “judicial proceeding” for grand jury disclosures. While grand jury material was produced in the Nixon impeachment, there is lingering uncertainty in the courts over the true scope of this legal term.

        But none of this really matters. House Democrats are continuing with a strategy of “planned obsolescence” of impeachment failure designed to occur just before the 2020 election. Even if the House prevails in court, the grand jury information it is seeking would not materially change an impeachment effort, beyond wasting time to guarantee its failure. Whatever the House Judiciary Committee process is, it lacks the focus, urgency, or credibility to be an impeachment. Indeed, the glacial pace of this process over the last two years makes kabuki look like an action film.”
        https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/461404-words-matter-except-to-democrats-when-it-involves-impeaching-trump

        Alan M. Dershowitz:
        https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

        https://finance.yahoo.com/video/alan-dershowitz-says-trump-impeachment-152652221.html

        Mark Levin:
        https://video.foxnews.com/v/6097538166001/#sp=show-clips

        https://video.foxnews.com/v/6092770211001/#sp=show-clips

        To be continued…

    • Chris says:

      David French:

      The sad thing is that Sen. Graham knows better. He knows House proceedings aren’t a trial. He knows that all these things can happen in the Senate. He also knows that depositions are a normal part of discovery in a conventional legal process.

      https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1187567514919866368

  7. Chris says:

    I’ll say this for your defense of the president, David: they’re better than the defenses issued by his lawyers and media surrogates.

    Even if President Donald Trump shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, New York authorities could not punish him while he is in office, the president’s lawyers argued Wednesday.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/23/trump-lawyer-prosecuted-shooting-someone-055648

    Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker: “Abuse of power is not a crime.”

    https://news.yahoo.com/former-acting-ag-abuse-power-182420184.html

    Very normal defenses of a very normal president, in a very normal and cool time!

    • Pie Guevara says:

      This is useless. I have not been “defending” Trump. I have been offering my opinions of what is going on politically. What part of that do you not understand?

      • Chris says:

        Your opinion is that impeaching Trump is ridiculous and unfair, as you have clearly demonstrated. That is a defense. Why do you deny this? Whom do you believe you are fooling?

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Chris Souza Writes To Me:

    Your opinion is that impeaching Trump is ridiculous and unfair, as you have clearly demonstrated. That is a defense. Why do you deny this? Whom do you believe you are fooling?

    Unbelievable. I have made no statements whatsoever that I think the impeachment probe is ridiculous and unfair. In fact I do not. (The way the probe is proceeding may be ripe for ridicule but that is not my doing.)

    What is wrong with Souza? Now he is telling me what my opinion is? Seriously, Chris needs to get some professional help. At least remedial English comprehension if not professional psychiatric care. This goes far beyond mere Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  9. Peggy says:

    Four More Years!

    Historically Accurate Election Model Finds Trump Will ‘Steamroll the Competition’ in 2020:

    “President Donald Trump looks poised to win a second term by a landslide, according to a new report released by Moody’s Analytics.

    A new report by Moody’s Analytics, which has correctly predicted all but one presidential election since 1980, says that Trump could easily win the 2020 presidential election by an even larger margin than his victory in 2016.

    The models found that Trump will win either 289, 332, or 351 Electoral College votes in 2020. The results are based on how consumers feel about the economy and their economic situation, stock market gains, and prospects for unemployment.”

    https://ijr.com/election-model-trump-steamroll-competition-2020/?utm_campaign=IJR%20-%20Facebook%20Content&utm_content=104115314&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-189885532970

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *