Posted on 12/20/2019 10:09:44 AM PST by powermill
When it comes to impeachment, the House Democrats’ job is essentially over. The two articles before the chamber have passed. The only obligations left to them are to notify the Senate of their conclusions, name managers of the process, and allow the Republican-led chamber to reach a verdict, which some of its members (including leadership) say they’ve already reached. It should hardly come as a shock that a legislative chamber full of lawmakers who have been outwardly skeptical of the drive to impeach Trump will take a dim view of the articles against him, but the inevitability of what’s about to happen seems to be a surprise to Democrats.
Late Wednesday night, Speaker Nancy Pelosi floated the possibility that the House might withhold the articles of impeachment against Trump and not transmit them to the Senate at all. At least, not until she receives assurance from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that the process will proceed in a manner that satisfies House Democrats.
The Speaker has been in politics for a long time. She has a demonstrated capacity to advance her party’s interests at all costs, even including her speakership. Perhaps she’s playing a shrewd game here, too. But you have to squint to make the end game out. And even then, the blurry object on the horizon looks decidedly unsatisfying from a Democratic perspective.
There are three obvious downsides associated with Pelosi’s apparent strategy. The first is that it utterly contradicts the approach the House has taken over the last three months.
The need to impeach the president was such an urgent matter, we were told, that the House could not wait for the courts to rule on challenges to the White House’s efforts to prevent key witnesses like Mick Mulvaney, Don McGahn, and John Bolton (whom House Democrats didn’t even subpoena) from testifying. These important figures all claimed they would await guidance from the judiciary before consenting to testify, and the indications were that the extraordinary nature of the impeachment process would prove compelling. Now the courts aren’t even sure if they are obliged to continue litigating the matter. With the articles passed, the issue is all but moot. Democrats now insist that the Senate cannot proceed unless it hears from these witnesses, but that is also tacit admission that the fact-finding portion of impeachment proceedings was unduly rushed.
The second problem with Pelosi’s maneuver is that she will be ignored. Perhaps the speaker is trying to establish herself as McConnell’s foil, but the majority leader would have to confer upon her the authority she is demanding. And why would he? The House has no authority to dictate terms to the Senate. Nor should the Senate establish the rules that will govern Trump’s trial until the chamber has been properly informed by the House of the president’s impeachment. Pelosi is essentially threatening the GOP with a good time. Why shouldn’t the upper chamber simply dismiss the demands of House Democrats, making them look impotent in the process while drawing the inevitable out?
And that establishes the third problem with Pelosi’s maneuver: Time has not been on Democrats’ side. Democrats had little choice but to rush the depositional phase of impeachment proceedings, in part, because of the presidential campaign calendar bearing down on them but also because public opinion is slowly reverting to the mean. Support for impeaching Trump has declined steadily since the revelations involving Ukraine began to be litigated in a partisan environment like Congress, and that effect shows no signs of slowing. As for the Democrats who supported these articles, why wouldn’t members of the GOP in the Senate want to allow them to twist in the wind while also giving the Trump-supporting constituents of persuadable Senate Republicans time to pressure their lawmakers?
It’s easy to see why Democratic leadership was so eager to tamp down the demand for Trump’s impeachment from her caucus’s most zealous members. Whatever the merits of Pelosi’s strategy may be—and if you are aware of them, please let me know what they are—they seem objectively outweighed by the downsides. If Pelosi has bluffed her way into a loss, it is a rare strategic mistake on her part. But you do what you can with the hand you’re dealt.
Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard Law School, published an opinion piece in Bloomberg on Thursday arguing against the House Democrats withholding the articles of impeachment, thus preventing the Senate from holding a trial.
"Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution:
The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment.
The Senate must actually hold a trial," he argues. "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president.
If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
PS: Please check my tagline.
But basically what’s in them?
Yeah, but Christmas break. They had time to deliver to the Senate (where it will go no place) but it looks like it must not be THAT important.
Nancy, it is well passed the time for you to step down (psst...America will do it for you in November if you don’t do it yourself)!
Whatever the arguing voices in her head tell her.
Pelosi is old, mentally unbalanced and suffers from hangovers. That’s not conducive to rational actions.
Seems to me Pelosi is disenfranchising voters from her own caucus.
She’s losing it, Jim!
“Nancy Pelosi, What Are You Doing?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Undermining the Constitution as usual.
She is the one who falsely certified Obama as eligible.
Well, to Hawaii at least.
https://canadafreepress.com/article/dnc-failed-to-certify-obama-as-eligible-in-most-states1
All the dems need is a handful of republican senators to control the trial.
While the dems may not have votes to remove him., a ’Kavanaugh‘ type of trial, with tax returns, and me too bimbos, could be made to stretch to the 2020 election.
She nullified the impeachment by holding the articles.
Nancy has maneuvered between her socialists (and the stupidity of their demands) and not impeaching Trump. She can say to the socialists they impeached Trump and she can say to the world they didn’t impeach Trump. But it is all too stupid by half. But there you have it. Depending on who she’s talking to: Trump is impeached and not impeached.
But it has taken a toll. She should be happy she can talk without stammering most of the time, and she should be happy that she’ll lose her wackadoddle hammer by next year. It couldn’t be better for Nancy for once her wackadoddle hammer is gone, the socialist like goblin whackamoles will eat her up... without a burp in between.
exactly. now the turtle has to squash it cold.
You’re off base. They can’t bring in tax returns and bimbos.
They have to argue the charges of impeachment.
Oh, and the Kavanaugh debacle helped POTUS approval rating jump and not ever fall again.
The fun part is watching all the blithering idiots posting selfies of themselves “enjoying the first day that Trump is not president anymore”
You almost want to keep yer trap shut just so you can enjoy it for as long as possible.
Schrödinger wept.
“Pelosi has bluffed her way into a loss.”
She always had a losing hand on impeachment, and she’s up against a much better poker player.
Her plan is that the longer she holds them, the more pressure will be on Romney, Collins, Murkowski and a few others. If McConnell loses support from a few out of his caucus, Schumer is driving the train. I think she has a good strategy as Romney and his band will do anything to get praise from the media.
Hey Nancy,
Chicken Bawk Bawk!
They should get somebody to go around in a chicken suit stalking Nancy.
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.