Disagree. The context of the Constitution refers to Congress’s power with the House as the sole body that can initiate the process and the Senate as the sole body that ends the process of impeachment.
No other body can initiate other than the House, no other body can decide its outcome other than the Senate.
If there is no Senate on the end of it, then impeachment is meaningless making it as important as flea dust on a carpet: it’s nothing.
Pelosi can start impeachment on anything her caucus wants. She can start to impeach the building’s janitor. She can start to impeach her shadow. But if she is going to start an impeachment of the President, she has to include the Senate. If she doesn’t include the Senate, then it’s not an impeachment, it’s a farce which most know is what it truly is in this case.
I guess so??? PDJT was impeached (it being BS, hyper-partisan, etc., etc. doesn’t really matter in the end, it happened)...whether it makes it over to the Senate for the trial is now in question I guess from what I am reading tonight. As far as being impeached is “meaningless” goes, I wouldn’t go that far as it has only happened 3 times to a president (Hamilton/Clinton/Trump) and once to a federal judge. Rarity alone adds a certain significance to it. In any case, hopefully this goes down in the history books as the worst case of partisan/attack politics in history, and we celebrate a 2020 win for PDJT. Who hopefully works on a balanced/surplus budget in “term 2”. YMMV.
Look at Bill Clinton.
He was impeached.
You never hear about that.
But with Trump? That’s all you will be hearing about.
I think it will help him more than hurt him.