Posted on 12/20/2019 2:45:05 PM PST by bryan999
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Source?
I wanna know what you think of my idea about changing the rules to 1) Trial 10 days after the House votes and 2) only the Speaker can present the case on the Senate floor.
They would force Pelosi’s hand, and, they would put her Speakership in peril.
By long parliamentary practice, predating the Constitution, neither House is officially aware of what goes on in the other until it receives notice from the other House.
It’s good practice.
The point has been made by many including me that the Senate can set a deadline and dismiss or acquit based on failure to prosecute.
My suspicions are that some really nasty controllers are pulling the strings of Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and that these same puppeteers are having others pull some real horrors behind the scene involving blackmail of US Senators.
I refuse to follow the headlines that Pelosi’s democrats are panicking. They are controlled by something evil and that evil entity is serious about getting both Trump and Pence in any way possible. IOW it is indeed a real coup in process. I posted the arms confiscation in Virginia is not unrelated.
In short, this is not over by a long shot but a Senate deadline would limit the time available to enforce extortion and blackmail on Senate members. It’s a good move.
Nope. They prosecute the case. This is the House role in the trial. The senate makes the rules for the trial, but the trial can't happen if the house doesn't prosecute its impeachment case. The senate doesn;t "make the charge," it hears it, and it has to hear it from the house. And hear more than the conclusion, which is what the articles are. The house has to argue the case, and that is what the managers are charged with doing.
Manager's role in Clinton impeachment trial
Resolved, That Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr. Gekas of Pennsylvania, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot of Ohio, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of these appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in connection with the preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following:(1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary assistants and incurring such other expenses as may be necessary, to be paid from amounts available to the Committee on the Judiciary under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives.
(2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the Secretary of the Senate, on the part of the House of Representatives, any pleadings, in conjunction with or subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary.
The senate doesn't argue the case to itself. It hears arguments and facts from both sides, to the extent it finds necessary to reach the right conclusion, then reaches its conclusion.
There must be a way to annul the impeachment. There are similar functions in law...expunge the record.
No it doesn't. Sheesh, everybody can look at the constitution. You could at least say the requirement is in some law somewhere, and scam people into looking into some massive amorphous body of statutory and case law. But saying it is in the constitution, heck, I can see it's not in there by reading just a few pages.
The laws for impeachment:
...........
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm
.......
are statutory requirements vested by the Constitution like any other Federal Law until the Supreme Court throws them out or amends them.
For what reason? Ginsberg’s vote would be a liberal vote.
Incoming would be a conservative vote. No benefit to the Dems for sure.
The liberal democrat lawyer Feldman affirmed my take that impeachment is initiated in the House (the sole body that can set it in motion) and is then disposed of in the Senate, that it’s a process, a two-step process that cannot be separated into only one part belonging to the House.
If the charges of impeachment never make it to the Senate, the impeachment was never delivered, it is as good as abandoned, it is left incomplete.
The President is therefore NOT impeached.
I believe there is something far more sinister taking place:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3802497/posts?page=45#45
Was Clinton impeached?
The argument that Trump is not yet impeached has nothing to do with he's not removed from office. It has to do with Peolsi's too clever by half move to put the impeachment resolution in her desk instead of acting on it.
I should have explained, the Constitution is not a statutory document, but it enables statues to have the force of the Constitution.
..........
Go through the link I provided.
Yes, I notice many people recommending that. I am not one of them.
Schrödinger’s cat was, and wasn’t, asked to comment.
I understand it is good practice to ‘officially’ not recognize actions from the other congressional chamber until it is so ‘officially’ informed.
But also in law and justice there are principles such as the statutes of limitations and the right to a speedy trial. For most crimes the state can’t indict someone and then wait years before starting the trial.
Taking that principle to impeachment also makes sense, especially given the gravity of the charge (even though in this instance the charge itself is nonsensical, in theory this is the most severe charge Congress can impose on a POTUS). The Senate doesn’t have to allow a ‘rolling impeachment process’. They can insist that they won’t recognize an impeachment that isn’t processed within some reasonable time frame following the vote in the House because that is the right and reasonable and legally consistent thing to do - especially given the consequences.
Congress can remove a POTUS for specific and grave reasons. Impeachment by definition means it requires urgent consideration for the sake of the Republic. The House Democrats have made a mockery of it and there is no reason for the Senate to tolerate their playing with fire. Make them pay a political price, posthaste.
Hope you and yours have a blessed and merry Christmas, one that appreciates the gift of salvation God bestowed on all who believe.
There is an inherent statute of limitiations in impeachment of a president. His term of office.
Now, I do agree that the general principle of credible government requires expediency, as well as accuracy and fairness. It's up to the two branches of Congress to navigate that, and right now they are proving they are idiots.
There are many more sinister things taking place! On that we agree.
I do understand Feldman’s point. And I even agree to a point. But it feels like hair splitting. I am no lawyer. But my plain reading of the Constitution is that a POTUS is impeached when so voted by the House, and removed if convicted in the Senate.
No matter what, it will be argued both ways now and in the future because no House has ever been so callous about impeachment in the past. Ultimately I think they will have to file the articles in the Senate just because they will look even worse than they do now if they don’t - including by many in their own party.
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.