[Repeal The 17th]

As clearly as I can explain it:

An impeachment is an ‘accusation’ or ‘charge’.

The Constitution says the House has the responsibility for impeachments.
The Constitution allows the House to set it’s own rules.
The House has voted to impeach the President.
The President has been impeached (accused, charged) by the House.

The Constitution says the Senate has the responsibility for ‘trying’ impeachments.
The Constitution allows the Senate to set it’s own rules.
The Senate rules say that they will begin action on impeachment
when the House presents their findings to the Senate.

Thus far, the House has not presented their findings to the Senate.

So, we are currently at an impasse.

I can explain it to you,
but I can’t understand it for you.

[thinden]

Good explanation

Thanx

[samtheman]

The Senate rules say that they will begin action on impeachment
when the House presents their findings to the Senate.
—
Maybe such a rule currently in the senate but not so written in the constitution, which only says the senate alone decides trial rules.

Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the need for the house to “present their findings”.

[ExpatCanuck]

The condescension is not necessary. I understand what you’ve written (and in fact understood it before I posted). My point is that regardless of the procedural and legal machinations required for an official ‘impeachment’, they (the Democrats and their media) will try to use it as a cudgel for the rest of DJT’s presidency no matter what stage or state the process is in, whether it be a standstill (which they want) or a trial (which they don’t want).

Having said that, I don’t necessarily think it is a bad thing because the shenanigans seem to be swaying some middle of the road or indifferent voters away from the Dems and NO Trump supporters away from the President.