What kind of BS is this? The Constitution doesn't says the Senate "must" hold a trial. If the House votes through an illegitimate sham impeachment - without a formal vote on beginning impeachment inquiries, and without allowing Trump to confront his shadowy CIA hearsay accuser - then the impeachment does not rise to the credibility of deserving a trial.
Also, if the vote includes Dem congressmen who are candidates for president, their obvious conflict of interest renders the exercise fraudulent.
Senate GOP "leadership" should lead. It looks like they may be taking us down the garden path.
> “... without a formal vote on beginning impeachment inquiries, ...”
I think McConnell was aiming at putting a vote to the Senate on having the trial and knew ahead of time the vote would block the trial from ever getting started.
In this context, the Senate would review the House’s Articles of Impeachment and vote whether they want their time spent in a trial or not. If the Articles are shabby and partisan, chances are the Senate will say no-go.
If the house votes for articles of impeachment, the Senate can immediately impose Scottish law and find that the articles are not proven.
Personally, I’d want a secret ballot imposed on a vote for the legitimacy of the articles. Let the cowards who want to end Trump just for defying the order of things see how strong their hand actually is. I doubt they would have the guts to even vote against him in secret, but it would be useful to know that if not.
Thank goodness we get to go 4 years without a legislative branch of government. Just an executive and a preoccupied judicial one so inept they issue FISA warrants because Michael Isakov wrote about something.
If a Senate trial happens, get the popcorn.
Discovery will be FUN to watch.
Yeah, the House has avoided a vote even on an Impesachent inquiry.
How should the renate respond… to nothing?
The only clause in the Constitution that governs this matter says this:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”
There are no other requirements, rules, mandates or prohibitions on the Senate’s trial of an impeachment in the rest of the Constitution.
All that matters here is that the Constitution grants full, unchallengeable, non-reviewable. plenary authority to the Senate to conduct the trial. It’s logically impossible that such authority does not include the authority to do nothing. There is no clause that says anything equivalent to “The Senate SHALL conduct a trial, whenever a Federal official is impeached.”
That said, holding a trial might be the only way to get the true facts out to the public, including whatever documents or other information that might need to be declassified.
This is why the impeachment inquiry is such a joke. The House is attempting to do the Senate’s job while not voting for thr Senate to actually do the job. Funny how no one is mentioning this.
True. But there is no requirement that you act upon them.
If the GOOBers think 2018 was bad, wait until they see what happens to their jobs if they cooperate with the commie ‘RATs and their overthrowing of America’s president. They haven’t seen Jack Sh*t yet.
No. The Senate should stop it. The following article from the Spectator, by the way, should have been posted as a proper excerpt in news and editorial.
Senate Shouldn’t Dignify Impeachment Parody With a Trial
The Spectator
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3782368/posts
IF the House ever gets around to voting for impeachment...and they impeach....
The Senate must take that political football and run with it. They must actually bring it to trial with discovery.
If they do not. If they quash the House impeachment, it will look bad in the eyes of the voters. Not in the eyes of the progressives. They're mind is made up against Trump. Not in the eyes of the conservatives, our mind is made up for Trump.
This election (like many others, including the 2016 election) will depend immensely on how the "independents" and more conservative (D)'s vote. Those that voted for Trump in 2016. We need them...again.
Without those votes, there simply isn't enough conservatives for Trump to be re-elected.
We can not afford to have the Senate say...no thanks, we're not going to take up that impeachment. Such a move won't sit well with those fence sitting voters.
The Senate must proceed, but with full investigation and airing out of all the (D)'s dirty laundry and illegalities....and THEN vote to not convict.
That will give the fence sitters the confidence they need to vote again for Trump in 2020.
The Senate should simply dismiss the charges, because there was no impeachable offense.
For what it may be worth, the Senate has the sole power to conduct an impeachment trial. But, there’s no constitutional mandate that it decide to do so.
IMPEACHMENT HARVESTING
Democrats will Re-Impeach repeatably until 2020.
Get ready for Impeachment the Sequal part 6
part 7
part 8
Has anybody asked McConnell whether, if Ruth Buzzy were to kick the can, he would allow the senate to vote on whomever Trump nominates, while Trump is on trial in the senate?
BTW, how is Buzzy doing?
Yes it does.
First of all, Justice Roberts “could” declare that the whole shebang is unworthy of proceeding.
The House is the grand jury, the Senate is where the trail is held.
It'll never happen
My theory is that the Senate ALWAYS intended on voting on removal from office if Trump were impeached in the House, but McConnell didn’t want to give that away.
What the Dems WANTED was McConnell was to say that there would be no trial in the Senate (great talking point for 2020), but given the non-existent ‘evidence’ of crimes, having the trial and then the vote is MUCH BETTER than not voting, as that leaves the Democrats trying to make a non-existent case.
As to the results of the vote. It will be close to 50 for and 50 against in the Senate, FAR SHORT of the 2/3’s needed to take Trump out. Senator Doug Jones of Alabama is the only Democrat that will have to think very hard before he votes to convict, as that will likely end his career (he’s up next year), and Manchin will have to give it some thought too, if he wants to be viable in the future for anything either in WV, or national. For Republicans, maybe 3 to 5 of them vote to convict, but no more. For the vast majority of Republicans, they know voting to convict, at this point is the end of their careers in politics...that simple.