921
Comments (62)
sorted by:
25
NotProgCensored 25 points ago +25 / -0

Her face was as straight as the old girl can do these days.

19
NostalgicFuturist [S] 19 points ago +19 / -0

She can't even look you straight in the eye:

https://i.imgur.com/n4HCw8D.png

9
fthecoup 9 points ago +9 / -0

So the traitor bitch Pelosi demands the Senate trial be unbiased, impartial and bipartisan.

You are fucking kidding me, Nancy. And the federal news media must report this hypocrisy while spinning like a top. Beam me up, Scottie!

20
Maxter 20 points ago +20 / -0

"You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now." ??

15
deleted 15 points ago +15 / -0
14
painfulfart 14 points ago +14 / -0

If they wanna play dirty, I say take the gloves off, let's go.

Nothing should be outside the realm of possibility. Fuck 'em.

10
jc99ta 10 points ago +10 / -0

They've been playing dirty for decades.

4
Data 4 points ago +5 / -1

Dirty is their only play. It's all they know. Conservatives need to stop being cucked and letting them get away with it by always taking "the high road".

11
K-Harbour 11 points ago +11 / -0

Ok — change the Senate rules to say that the House need not formally send the bill to the Senate —— the Senate can read the House public record on its own, it doesnt need the formality of it being prsented to them!!!

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
11
NostalgicFuturist [S] 11 points ago +11 / -0

Can't stump the Turtle.

8
mr_meatball_disaster 8 points ago +8 / -0

Can’t hurtle the turtle?

2
Kaiheitai 2 points ago +2 / -0

He talks a great game but don't be fooled, he could move on it today but he'll play along with the Dems. Uniparty in action.

8
OliveJuiceItaveYOus9 8 points ago +8 / -0

IF BIG MIKE HAS A DICK YOU MUST AQUIT

7
K-Harbour 7 points ago +7 / -0

I wish Republicans were quicker with their noodle —— immediately scream that Nancy is obstructing, call for her to step down!!!

1
OhLollyLollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree that Republicans need to step up their virtue signalling whine game to equal the Dims.

7
MrStaticElectricity 7 points ago +7 / -0

These people won't stop persecuting us until some of them start going to prison.

3
Kaiheitai 3 points ago +3 / -0

This. There are no consequences for them.

6
MAG_n_KAG 6 points ago +6 / -0

I wonder what kinds of consequences Mitch would receive if he sent an official response that said, "Suck on deez nutz beeeoooootch!!" Im very curious to know. The blowback from the media. The angry "condemnation" from butthurt dem faggots. Would he be removed for unethical conduct? Would it affect his reelection?

3
Freshcope 3 points ago +3 / -0

They could impeach him and then not give him the articles of impeachment.

6
monzzter221 6 points ago +6 / -0

Honestly this cracks me up. Why does the senate give a shit how long it takes to get the resolution? If it were up to them they'd never get it. They don't care. She is calling their bluff and everyone knows she is the only one bluffing.

4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
5
Archangel 5 points ago +5 / -0

The audacity to talk about fairness after that kangaroo court the house just had.

3
ThnBlamktem 3 points ago +3 / -0

Of course. Nancy Pelosi is threatening to not impeach if her terms aren't met. Call that bluff, Mitch.

3
dantes_GO7 3 points ago +3 / -0

I’d notify the Dems of the trial start date/time. If they are not there bar them and their lawyers from the Senate and commence on letting the President and his team drain the swamp.

1
OhLollyLollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

And don't try to dictate any terms, because you had your chance.

3
samncs_frd504 3 points ago +3 / -0

The glove dont fit.

3
anidiotsynchaty 3 points ago +3 / -0

Do it Mitch!!!!

2
OhLollyLollyPop 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think he is so angry at her that he is going to take this over and get it out of the way. And, if he allows Warren, Sanders, etc to vote, it's giving some group a basis to sue. It wouldn't be allowed in a court of law.

"Hey, you might have kicked my wife, so I am going to be on the jury and vote to have you put to death".

3
CucumberInLine 3 points ago +3 / -0

I said this yesterday. the house has done its part. it is now on the Senate to conduct the trial, with or without input from the house. if the Senate does not act the house ruling stands. does anybody else actually read the constitution or you guys just trust the media to inform you of the process? think for yourselves. we won.

3
ykDicm 3 points ago +3 / -0

What a great article!

And what about the Right to a Speedy Trial???

2
TozObBacon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well yeah! They just have the paper. ?

2
TraPperJeag 2 points ago +2 / -0

Question.... if the senate acquits now in 2019, can the House try again in 2020 or do they have to wait until 2021? Likewise if they acquit in 2020 do they have to wait until 2021 or can they have another go of it in 2020

2
OhLollyLollyPop 2 points ago +2 / -0

They have already tried to vote to impeach Trump 6 times before trying this joke of an impeachment. 6 times it was voted down in the House.

2
NostalgicFuturist [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

That in essence is what Article I, Section 3 means, according to Pollak: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

That's his take, and he's Breitbart's legal eagle. The language is broad, and maybe that was the Founder's intent: The Senate has the exclusive ("sole") authority to choose how it will proceed, or not proceed, period. Judges often dismiss cases without hearing them...

I'm not a lawyer. But I tend to trust Pollak's judgment.

EDIT: Article 1, section 5, clause 2 seems to reaffirm how much latitude the Senate has: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..."

Also, I found this article helpful:

When three impeached judges claimed the Senate was required to conduct a full trial, "the Senate countered that it had complete authority over how to fashion proceedings...Ultimately, the Supreme Court accepted the Senate's arguments in Nixon v. United States (1993) on the principal ground that the Senate's power to try impeachments included the nonreviewable final discretion to determine how to conduct its trials."

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment

The House Dims might try to take the matter to SCOTUS and ask them to revisit this ruling.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
LadyLuck 3 points ago +3 / -0

If the house didn't have its goddamn paperwork in order then they have no business impeaching... not that they had any business impeaching in the first place.

1
NostalgicFuturist [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, give them a deadline

1
lenisnore 1 point ago +1 / -0

Considering how hard they were pushing "the Constitution only mentions 'sole power' twice", doubt that's a great strategy

2
I_AM_THE_BEAST_87 2 points ago +2 / -0

I guess this is Schrodinger's impeachment now.

2
mestahyhtspai 2 points ago +2 / -0

ITS TURTLE TIME cmon Mitch

2
BanookaMosphLAs 2 points ago +2 / -0

Charge Pelosi with obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
OhLollyLollyPop 2 points ago +2 / -0

How would Nancy Pelosi know what is fair? Was making up non-criminal charges against Trump, then railroading her party to vote for them fair?

Does she really deign to try to tell the (more important and powerful) Senate how to deal with this scam? (They don't really care to bother with this joke at all).

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
maw0re 2 points ago +2 / -0

We'll do it live!

2
smurwo 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lord, I hope this is right.

This would at least get the case straight to the Supreme Court and the House Dems have been trying like hell to make this happen.

2
Murphl 2 points ago +2 / -0

If they decide for some reason that the “time is now”, the Senate should say, “Well, we’re not ready to receive it yet. We’ve got a lot going on right now...”.

2
VetforTrump 2 points ago +2 / -0

She is having a nervous breakdown.

1
OhLollyLollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

Nah! She is loaded and passed out by 9 pm.

2
chumchilla 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope one of her San FranCrisco residents mistakes her face for the floor of a supermarket and shits all over it. God I can't stand that ancient idiot.

2
polish_snausage 2 points ago +2 / -0

She wants the house to rule the senate? Fuck you very much Ms 80 Proof Slurrer

1
OhLollyLollyPop 1 point ago +1 / -0

I keep waiting for a reporter to ask her if she is ok when she makes no sense, slurs her words, and her teeth are falling out.

2
Licensetomeme 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok. So it's fair to sit on impeachment while you have the house and wait 2, 4, or more years until you have the senate? I appreciate her being honest about how she actually feels about democracy.

2
NostalgicFuturist [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Damn right

Where's the Punisher!?

1
AenAllAin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry, doesn't count until it's sent! la! la! la! The President is un-impeached! la! la! la! we can't hear you!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Yellow---Son 1 point ago +1 / -0

>Alright he's acquitted lets go to hooters on me YAHOOO

1
LittleBlackKat 1 point ago +1 / -0

Our cat tried to impeach me this morning.

1
mykillk 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is to deligitimize the Senate trial so that any Dems called as witnesses can refuse the subpoenas on the grounds they are not legally binding

1
digmondlevel 1 point ago +1 / -0

They should just run with Trump isn't even impeached...

1
MAGADUDE 1 point ago +1 / -0

Qid pro quo