Nancy Pelosi SILENCES cheering Democrats after ordering them not to celebrate Trump's impeachment

  
Nancy Pelosi SILENCES cheering Democrats after ordering them not to celebrate Trump's impeachment
'Don't cheer, keep it solemn,'

Democrats True Colors, True Colors..... Outed !

It was such a somber prayerful Day for Democrats. jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

"Don't Cheer, or else " ! jrSmiley_42_smiley_image.gif

Pretty Sad, when the Giddy Democrats have to be told to keep quiet like an unruley grade school class would be .

320

Despite reports that Democratic leaders told party members to 'keep it solemn', Michigan Rep. Rashida Tliab was all smiles after the historic vote to oust Donald Trump from office.

jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Nancy Pelosi silenced cheering Democrats with a warning wave of her hand on Wednesday after the House of Representative's historic vote to impeach President Donald Trump.

But she couldn't stop the infectious feeling of victory among Democrats as Squad member Rep. Rashida Tliab was seen grinning ear to ear after the vote.

The Speaker of the House, who has been a long-outspoken critic of the president, kept her poise at the podium of the House floor and hushed fellow Democrats as their cheered when the votes poured in to oust the president late Wednesday. 
After she announced 'Article one is adopted' she pounded her gavel and a smattering of applause broke out on Capitol Hill - but Pelosi silenced the room with a death glare and swift wave of her arm.

Pelosi described the day as a serious and solemn one before the hours of debate kicked off Wednesday afternoon. 
She said it was 'tragic that the president's reckless actions make impeachment necessary.'

'Today, as speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the debate on the impeachment of the president of the United States,' she said in her speech.

She and other Democratic leaders told their members not to cheer or applaud when the impeachment vote totals were announced, Axios reported. 

320

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
It Is ME
1  seeder  It Is ME    one month ago

OOOOOOPS ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
1.1  Citizen Kane-473667  replied to  It Is ME @1    one month ago

She couldn't even keep from smiling when she was calling it a "solemn" moment...

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.1  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @1.1    one month ago

When you watch the vid other reports have, when she say "It Passed", you could see she held back her smile. Either that or her teeth started falling out again. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  It Is ME @1.1.1    one month ago

Everytime I see Nancy speak all I can think is poligrip for fucks sake.Nothing pisses me of more than millionaires with fucked up teeth Hillary's neutra teeth also come to mind. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2  Ed-NavDoc    one month ago

And Pelosi had the nerve say she expects the Senate to run a fair trial! 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    one month ago

Kind of set the precedent for that didn't they. /s 

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif   jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2    one month ago
And Pelosi had the nerve say she expects the Senate to run a fair trial! 

It's Funny. Nancy thinks she can tell the Senate what to do. She's just holding things back until she and Schifty gets what they "Want" !

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @2.2    one month ago
She's just holding things back until she and Schifty gets what they "Want" 

This would be funny (haha) if it weren't so ...............funny (weird)............and obviously past her bedtime.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pelosi-suggests-she-may-wait-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-well-make-a-decision-as-we-go-along/ar-BBY8SRK?li=BBnb7Kz

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.2  seeder  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.1    one month ago

Pelosi: "Let me tell you what I don't consider a fair trial," she told the crowd of reporters. "This is what I don't consider a fair trial — that Leader McConnell has stated that he's not an impartial juror "

She's now worried about "Impartiality" ? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

What she said was just "Sick". 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  Vic Eldred    one month ago

In other words don't let the country see what democrats are made of.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    one month ago

She'll pass it along when the Senate lets her see "what's in it" (procedure and intent).

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
3.1.1  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1    one month ago

If I was McConnell. I would tell Nancy to fuck off, there is nothing to talk to Schumer about. If She doesn't send the impeachment over, there is nothing to discuss. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  loki12 @3.1.1    one month ago

McConnell is going to make a statement at 9:30 AM EST (in about 10 minutes)

 
 
 
Citizen Kane-473667
4  Citizen Kane-473667    one month ago

The Senate should vote on a time limit to submit the Articles of Impeachment and if they are not submitted within that time frame, vote to dismiss the charges.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Citizen Kane-473667 @4    one month ago

That would be a total backfire in her face...............and glorious as hell. Two can play this game. Ever wonder why the dems end up with egg on their faces and what they do comes back to bite them? It's because, no matter how much they and many right here deny it, it's all about feelings. It causes knee jerk reactions with no real thought about consequences.

"Liberalism - Feelings over intellect disguised as the latter".

 
 
 
KDMichigan
5  KDMichigan    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Tacos!
6  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

What a bunch of fakers.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    4 weeks ago

Lol ... they all got shushed by mad mommy ..... a small glimpse of the real person

 
 
 
sixpick
8  sixpick    4 weeks ago

Here is a problem.  Trump has been impeached.  That doesn't change.  The House impeached President Trump because they could, not because he committed any impeachable crimes.  Do you know any President who couldn't be impeached by the opposing Party in the House, if they desired to do so and had the votes?  The Left destroy everything they touch and they'll destroy our Republic if given the opportunity to do so.  Yes, it's a sad day.  What phonies these people are.  They really have a low opinion of their constituents.

Two House articles of impeachment fail to meet constitutional standards

House Democrats have announced the grounds of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on which they plan to seek the impeachment of President Trump.  Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption. A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the Constitution.

In doing this, they follow the view of Representative Maxine Waters who infamously declared that, when it comes to impeachment, “there is no law.” From her view, shared by some others, the criteria for impeaching a president is whatever a majority of the House says it is, regardless of what the Constitution mandates. This reductionistic and lawless view confuses what a majority of the House could get away with, if there is no judicial review, and what the mandated duty of all House members is, which is to support, defend, and apply the Constitution as written, not as it can be stretched to fit the actions of an opposition or controversial president.

If the House votes to impeach President Trump on grounds not authorized by the Constitution, its action, in the words of Hamilton, is void. As he put it in the Federalist Papers, “no legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” If this is indeed the case, then the Senate will be confronted with a constitutional dilemma, if and when it will receive a void and invalid impeachment. It will have to decide whether to proceed with a trial of charges that are unconstitutional and therefore are void.

An analogy to consider from ordinary criminal cases may be imperfect but informative. If a grand jury were to indict a citizen on an unconstitutional “crime,” like marrying a person of a different race, the trial judge would immediately dismiss the indictment and refuse to subject the defendant to a trial. Indeed, the House plays a role similar to that of a grand jury in the impeachment context, and the Senate plays a role similar to the trial court. In the presidential impeachment context, the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides and rules on the legal and evidentiary issues.

This is all uncharted ground, and it is difficult to predict how it will play out in the short term. In the long term, it is highly unlikely that President Trump will be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Senate controlled by Republicans. However, in the meantime, the unconstitutional action by a majority of the House to impeach a president on grounds not specified in the Constitution will certainly do considerable damage to the rule of law.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473849-two-house-articles-of-impeachment-fail-to-meet-constitutional-standards

I would think since all that has been exposed over the last 3 years, proving spying by people and agencies within the Obama Administration did occur and deception was used to accomplish it.

The General Prosecutor of Ukraine was fired at Joe Biden's ultimatum while his son was receiving upward of at least $83,000 a month to be a board member with a company the General Prosecutor was investigating and then replaced by another General Prosecutor who never prosecuted the owner of that company is reason enough to investigate that situation.

 A made up dossier was used to gain FISA warrants knowing the dossier was fake and paid for by the opposing candidate has been proven.

Putting a new Ambassador to Ukraine in office in September of 2016 right before the election who has been accused of telling the replacement General Prosecutor who to not investigate. 

With messages saying the President wants to know everything we are doing and many other things I will not waste my time going into at this time, you would think people with a little common sense and not corrupt or complacent with corruptness would wake up.

But I know that is not going to be the case.  Not only the hatred for Trump, but the hatred for us is such a driving force for these poor souls, they have lost all reason and clarity in their ability to to distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad.  They are slaves to the delusions created by those who do not have the best interest for anyone in this country, including them.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bbl-1
GregTx
Sean Treacy


23 visitors