Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 11, 2019

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Brushing back calls for impeachment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday "it's not even close" to having enough support in the House, while Democrats pushed forward on other fronts to investigate President Donald Trump. The House voted 229-191 to approve a resolution that will allow Democrats to accelerate their legal battles with the Trump administration over access to information from the Russia investigation.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

www.westernjournal.com

"What we have now is a bunch of Democrat committee chairmen who are using their investigative powers to poke around and see what they can find. They haven't found a darn thing, but they can look forever or until the voters take their gavels away, so as long as they're not willing to give up, impeachment is "not off the table."

Pelosi won't take impeachment off the table because what Democrats really want is something to talk about endlessly until the election. That's why they hauled John Dean's rickety old bones up there to testify yesterday. He has nothing to add. He doesn't even have any information. But putting him up there allows the media to write headlines like "Watergate figure testifies in Russia probe," and that's what the Democrats want."

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-06-12 12:24 AM | Reply

"What we have now is a bunch of ... committee chairmen who are using their investigative powers to poke around and see what they can find. They haven't found a darn thing, but they can look forever or until the voters take their gavels away..."

But enough about Gowdy, Nunes, and Benghazi.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 12:41 AM | Reply

Mueller found evidence that Trump committed multiple crimes. He also knew he couldn't charge him, or even say he wanted to because of DoJ policy that POTUS is immune from prosecution, except for impeachment.

Pelosi knows that the GOP Senate would not convict Trump even if his murders of little girls was caught on camera.

Starting impeachment would just give the traitorous GOP an opportunity to find Trump innocent and spread that lie before the election.

Pelosi knows the better plan is to wait until after 2020 and then let Trump die in prison.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2019-06-12 12:42 AM | Reply

"...because what Democrats really want is something to talk about endlessly until the election."

What??? A political party wants talking points?!?

Stop the presses!!!

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 12:50 AM | Reply

What??? A political party wants talking points?!?

And you think that this is an adequate substitute for impeachment?

Pathetic.

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-12 01:01 AM | Reply

Mueller found evidence that Trump committed multiple crimes.

He found that Trump obstructed justice. What other crimes are you referring to?

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-12 01:03 AM | Reply

"Mueller found evidence that Trump committed multiple crimes. He also knew he couldn't charge him, or even say he wanted to because of DoJ policy that POTUS is immune from prosecution, except for impeachment.
#3 | POSTED BY BORED "

This is 100% fake news/lie. Barr asked Mueller directly about this an Mueller responded 3 times that the DoJ policy did not play into whether or not to charge Trump.

#7 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-06-12 06:55 AM | Reply

"Barr asked Mueller directly about this an Mueller responded 3 times that the DoJ policy did not play into whether or not to charge Trump."

Pulled directly from your posterior.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-06-12 09:42 AM | Reply

#4 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

So it has nothing to do with actual impeachment for legitimate reasons?

And you ask us to produce a Republican that supports it....

You people are insane

He found that Trump obstructed justice. What other crimes are you referring to?
#6 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Not exactly ...

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI

No that is what was testified, and Mueller didn't deny, it wasn't until after delivery did the DoJ policy become an "issue"

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-06-12 09:56 AM | Reply

"And you think that this is an adequate substitute for impeachment? Pathetic."

Yeah, we know...you've got lots of advice for Democrats.

But while we're on the subject...remind me why Gowdy was heading up the Benghazi investigation, when he knew HRC wasn't even in the military chain of command.

And remember when you complained when it was all for political reasons? No one else does either.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:00 AM | Reply

#6 unindicted co conspirator in election fraud.

#11 | Posted by bored at 2019-06-12 10:02 AM | Reply

#10 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I don't follow.

You clearly seem pissed about the excessiveness of the Benghazi investigations, which is understandable.

Yet, when some point to the obvious excessiveness of the never-ending Mueller corollaries you don't condemn but instead deflect. Fair or not it comes across as a hyper-partisan, must defend Democrats at all costs type of thing.

As for me...I don't have a problem with any of it. I expect opposition parties to act like opposition parties and recognize that investigation-fatigue is a real thing and that incessant and obviously partisan investigations carry a political risk.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 10:06 AM | Reply

Benghazi!!!

*drink*

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-06-12 10:07 AM | Reply

"Barr asked Mueller directly about this an Mueller responded 3 times that the DoJ policy did not play into whether or not to charge Trump."
---
Pulled directly from your posterior.

#8 | POSTED BY DANNI

Are you denying this conversation took place?

Mueller hasn't denied it and Barr made it clear that it wasn't a one-on-one conversation. Others were present. There is a reason why Democrats aren't pushing this angle at all.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-06-12 10:14 AM | Reply

#10

Whataboutism noted.

Let me repeat the question, Dannac, since unlike you, I don't profess to be able to read minds:

" what Democrats really want is something to talk about endlessly until the election."

Do you really think that this is an adequate substitute for impeachment?

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-12 10:37 AM | Reply

"Whataboutism noted."

You misspelled hypocrisy. You were silent then; you're screaming now. The only diff is the letter after the name.

"Do you really think that this is an adequate substitute for impeachment?"

No. Nor do I want impeachment, which will simply turn things over to Mitch McConnell, the William Barr of the Senate.

"...unlike you, I don't profess to be able to read minds"

Based on your false claim about me yesterday, you're clearly unable to read English.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-06-12 10:42 AM | Reply

You were silent then; you're screaming now. The only diff is the letter after the name.

Wrong, I consistently said that the Benghazi hearings were a waste of time and money that would result in nothing meaningful. Your strawman game is as strong as your mindreading, did you have a one day class on that as well?

#17 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-06-12 11:19 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort