White House considers arguing that Trump wasn't impeached

The White House is considering making the argument that President Trump has not officially been impeached, given that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate, two sources involved in the president's impeachment defense told CBS News.

The House voted to impeach Mr. Trump on two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — on Wednesday. However, Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that the House would wait to deliver the articles until the Senate had laid out the rules for the trial.

"When we see the process that's set forth in the Senate, then we'll know the number of managers we'll have to move forward, and who we would choose," the California Democrat said. The House must vote on a resolution designating impeachment managers to prosecute the case against Mr. Trump in the Senate before delivering the articles.

One other thought. If Pelosi persists in this nonsense, the subject will come up in senate speeches at first, and there will at lest be some sort of "debate" and discussion on the subject. At some point, maybe McConnell or some other senator will start proposing formal actions that the Senate might take.

The same sort of creative process going on in so many venues, FR included, about how the Senate might force the issue, faced with a House that is procedurally derelict on a matter that has interbranch ramifications.

I totally agree with you that POTUS can plead to the senate. That is the correct venue, not SCOTUS. I'm sure there is substantial precedent for communications from the Executive. Maybe Trump can use the constitutional power of ordering Congress into session, and give them his impeachment as the subject matter. I'm ignorant of instances when this particular constitutional power was ever exercised.

***I totally agree with you that POTUS can plead to the senate. That is the correct venue, not SCOTUS***

Whitewater Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, brought up an interesting possibility on Laura Ingraham last night. He pointed out that a (Whig?) House censured Andrew Jackson (not 'Johnson') and the Senate confirmed, but the subsequent Dem Congress - both bodies - overturned the censure which apparently nullified the record.

Of course the pathological Dems will claim through to Armageddon that Trump is impeached, but this presents one possibility of expunging the gross partisan impeachment stain for history.

I would like to see SCOTUS throw out the Articles of Impeachment on numerous unconstitutional grounds thus settling the issue conclusively and inarguably historically; that would dampen Dem fervor for more attempts to impeach and other silly shenanigans... but I suppose any port in a storm. :-/

The calculus is what path plays best politically (in the Senate)

Glad you're still up; we're heading out shortly for the Xmas break. Anyway, I wanted to share with you and others an experience I had during the lead up to the original impeachment notice back in October. We happened to be in DC (business & pleasure), and as my wife was otherwise engaged, I decided to swing by our senator's office (Feinstein) to pick up some Congressional gallery passes.

It just so happened that both Cocaine Mitch and Schumer decided to devote their opening session comments to the looming impeachment discussion. My impression before, then and still afterward is that each senator's primary objective was/is to maintain their prerogative. Most of the commentary was targeted criticism of the House, and how the Senate was not beholden to their mandate. That is, while they may talk a good game about governance, continuity, the respective legacies, etc, what they really manifest is ego.

I watched the proceedings for maybe an hour, then skipped over to the House. (If you've been, you know that you must leave the Senate wing and then re-enter the House side of Congress through an entirely security protocol.) Well, I lucked out because I wasn't seated for more than 5 minutes - in an essentially empty chamber - when Pelosi came in and gavelled the session open. For about an hour, I listened to members of her caucus go on about the imminent emergency posed by Trump and the need for impeachment. Again, my take away memory was one of ego and privilege.

So, from my layman's perspective, my guess the Senate will act not so much as to protect Trump, maintain GOP party unity, act to preserve a legacy, etc, but rather to slap down the House for their insolence. I cannot see the Senate allowing the House to determine when or how they proceed with trial without any conditions as to senatorial privilege. My guess is they will amend their respective rules to anticipate notice and/or scheduling according to Senate procedures.

I don't see the necessity of SCOTUS imposing a non-party opinion, nor would I expect either chamber to invite such interference. Like a mob battle for neighborhood control, this is strictly "family" business going down inside Congress. Whatever ends up occurring will ultimately prove to ensure the Senate is never 'insulted' again over impeachment, as if they were some teenage girl anxiously awaiting a phone call from a prospective date.

> Again, my take away memory was one of ego and privilege...

> Like a mob battle for neighborhood control, this is strictly “family” business going down inside Congress.

Having observed some of the proceedings, would you still admit to the possibility that it is all kabuki, and the real order of business is to prevent exposure to ongoing bipartisan corruption (eg Ukranian-enabled graft?).

> Whatever ends up occurring will ultimately prove to ensure the Senate is never ‘insulted’ again over impeachment, as if they were some teenage girl anxiously awaiting a phone call from a prospective date.

(Chuckle)

Breaking: Adam Schiff Sets Eyes on Pence – He’s “Acquired Evidence” From Ukrainian Investigation
GP | 12/19/19 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 12/19/2019, 1:13:02 PM by Enlightened1

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3802184/posts

as carl sagan might say, extraordinary actions imply extraordinary motives... is it possible that pelosi could be holding off until a compliant house impeaches pence, then present all articles on both trump and pence to a (possibly compliant) senate for a (kangaroo) trial and conviction (in which case pelosi would become president)?

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.