Posted on 12/20/2019 9:45:52 AM PST by powermill
Fox News host Laura Ingraham insisted on Thursday night that President Donald Trump was not actually impeached and that the entire process was “pretend.”
“America’s first fake impeachment,” Ingraham claimed one day after 230 House members voted yea to Article I of impeachment, on if Trump abused executive powers, and 229 voted yea on Article II, which accused him of obstructing justice. “Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were right about one thing. Yesterday was historic. But not for the reason they claim. It’s historic because it was the first time the impeachment process has been used for purely partisan reasons.”
“One could make a fairly decent argument that the president wasn’t really even impeached,” she added, before laying out her theory, based on an op-ed by Noah Feldman in Bloomberg.
Now, why am I saying that? Because Nancy and the gang ran out of town without even naming impeachment managers, and without even sending the articles to the Senate! Do you know who else is saying this? The Democrats’ own lawyer, Noah Feldman, one of their impeachment witnesses wrote today, ‘If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it actually hasn’t impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.'”
The host concluded that the whole process was a “pretend impeachment.”
“She just did this fake impeachment yesterday to get run out of town? How inconvenient. Again, it’s all fake,” she continued. “This is why the impeachment theater didn’t rate well even with the resistance watchers, both the acting and the script were lame. Fox has been Dominating the ratings since this sad saga began. Not trying to brag, but we have. The House impeached itself yesterday by perpetrating a fraud on the American people.'
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Claim that because the Democrats are stating publicly that Trump has been impeached, that the Senate now has complete jurisdiction, and set a trial date. If the Democrat trial managers don't show, you dismiss the case with prejudice for lack of prosecution.
Or, if the Democrats want to agree with their own law professor that Trump hasn't actually been "impeached", then they can pass a resolution to that effect, or Pelosi could even send a letter to the Senate saying that they have not yet impeached Trump.
Force her to either make a public clarification, or dismiss the charges with prejudice.
I was in the pool.
I was in the pool.........the pool..
Years ago when I was in a wholesale business a lot of my customers were from a particular foreign country that I will not name. All of them were habitually bad payers.
I went to the office of one and gave him some real grief about owing me money. He looked at me dead serious and said I had been paid. I said no I haven’t. He opened his desk drawer and showed me the check made out to me. He said that because he made the check out, I was paid even if he hadn’t mailed it.
I think that’s reasonably analogous to this crap Ola from Pelosi.
Yeah, I also noticed the Constitution suffers from a distinct absence of that most fundamental rule of fairness “crossies don’t count.”
Laura is jumping the gun.
It was 3 weeks after Clinton was impeached before the Senate had the articles.
Just chill out everyone. After the 1st of the year - Nancy will have the articles delivered to the Senate. Nowhere does it say this must be done immediately.
Unprecedented?
I think you yourself wrote that it was 3 weeks after Clinton was impeached before the Senate had the Managers come.
If not you - someone else.
OK, Constitutional scholar, you tell us the Constitutional definition of impeachment, troll.
#Shampeachment!
Yep, along the lines of this...
pock·et ve·to
/ˈpäkət ˈvēdō/
noun
an indirect veto of a legislative bill by the president or a governor by retaining the bill unsigned until it is too late for it to be dealt with during the legislative session.
.
That doesn't change the "law professor" and Laura's point.
They think Trump hasn't been impeached...yet!
Is there any legal repercussions to Nancy Pelosi sending over fake articles of impeachment?
I know that if a District Attorney indicts a person on false charges that’s pretty bad
So how did that end with the guy and the check claiming you were paid because he made out the check?
It was. There is nothing in the Congressional record of the day the impeachment resolution passed to suggest the House went to the senate that day.
But it did. The record appears in the first day of the next Congress.
I learned that about an hour ago. Checked the Congressional record myself, found a couple entries that the House went to the senate secretary (the senate was had days earlier adjourned sine die) and provided the notification.
Messages from the House received subsequent to sine die adjournment - Jan 6, 1999
Under the authority of the order of the Senate of January 7, 1997, the Secretary of the Senate, on December 19, 1998, subsequent to the sine die adjournment of the Senate, received a message from the House of Representatives announcing that the House of Representatives has impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States; the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, which the managers on the part of the House of Representatives have been directed to carry to the Senate; and Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr. Gekas of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina, have been appointed as managers.
OMG.
Thanks for your diligence to ferretting out the facts. There is so much speculation and disinformation here at FR on what is true or not. And what can, will, or might happen next.
But when you post something, I study it. Because you have taken the time to research matters. And are well versed on these current and past events.
Thanks again.
“without even sending the articles to the Senate”
Yes they did!
LIVE and instantly on CSPAN. BOOM!
He handed me the check and asked me to refill my racks with merchandise.
Because of the cultural differences I can’t be certain, but I believe that because the check was written, calculated into his bank account and he planned on giving it to me at some point he figured that was good. Most of the store owners from that country that I sold (unfortunately a lot because they had cornered the gift shop business in central Florida) would only pay us vendors when we came in and demanded payment. I surmise that is the accepted way of doing business where they came from. I think it was considered perfectly ethical to withhold payment as long as possible.
Here’s another good one from that same ethnic group. He had 23 stores, so there was a lot of business to be had......but you had to be his bank to a degree. What his accountant would do is write and date all checks within 30 days of the vendor’s invoice. Then they would sit on the checks for 6 months and mail all of them in one batch. So once the vendor like me deposited the checks with those dates they were effectively considered paid in 30 days. Because this chain was such a big player in the area, most small vendors like myself had to go along with it because of the sales volume.
Eventually when 95% of the gift shops in central Florida were owned by this ethnic group I called it quits and went into a different kind of sales that didn’t require dealing with these people. I went to one of my few US owned customers of a decent size and sold all of my inventory at less than 1/2 wholesale and walked away. It was a hard thing to do, but I wish I had done it 5 years earlier.
Nowadays a number of checks written 6 months before probably wouldn’t even clear.
I’ve noticed in previous jobs how reliant the owners of small business could be on credit extended by vendors; I understand it, but it isn’t a good thing - as though the vendors were bearing the risks of operating the businesses instead of the owners themselves. Seemed to go against the concept that business owners should be unrestrained in their profits as they alone bore the risks.
I’m shocked at how many small businesses (delis, mechanics, liquor stores) have signs that they don’t extend credit; has it become that common for people to ask? Credit cards are pre-approved loans; have that many people maxed them out - or don’t qualify for them?
I don’t think there should be any attempt to scrub this; the impeachment is much more significant (in a positive way) and shouldn’t be broomed under the carpet.
It has exposed how far we’ve sunk, and just as being called “raciss” by these radicals is a badge of honor, the impeachment should be as well. The Swamp has pulled out all the stops against this president who has openly vowed that he won’t let them steal our country from us; they are validating his comments and our concerns.
Wow, thanks for explaining. Really is a huge cultural difference when it comes to doing business with foreign vendor owners.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.