Posted on 01/09/2020 1:16:00 PM PST by yesthatjallen
I caught the tail end of her press briefing today and she told a joke about her family and something about Tom Brady - everyone was laughing. I can’t imagine that woman saying ANYTHING funny. Perhaps she was auditioning for SNL...What was it about? Most of us find her simply nauseating!
“”House 25 days to send articles of impeachment over to the Senate.””
She’s had more than enough time to do that - pare it down to Friday and call it quits! I wouldn’t give her any more time.
Mitch and Linda are up in 20. Among the best things our President has going for him.
The existing rules pertain when/after the House exhibits the articles to the Senate. We aren't there, so this isn't about changing a rule.
This is about making a new rule for when the House impeaches but does not exhibit in a reasonable time.
Dang straight Mitch has had enough! Effing with Trump is one thing but effing with the Senate is another entirely different intolerable thing.
Ole !
Leni
25 days is BS. The rats would have done this on the second day the articles weren’t sent.
Incorrect.
Changing the Rules of the Senate requires a majority vote of the members. That is 51 votes. They can dismiss the impeachment with that backing.
McConnell may already have enough votes to do it. If so, he should proceed.
It takes a 2/3 vote of the Senators present to convict and remove the President. That could be 10 Democrat Senators, hanging around during a lunch hour, while everybody else left, if the Republicans were foolish enough to allow such a condition.
I would expect the Republicans are not quite that foolish.
You can bet that the Democrats have discussed a similar plan as a long-shot measure.
I would assume that 60 votes are needed to avoid a filibuster unless nuked.
:^D
Sure hope he does.
Nice little ditty...
Fat Boy Kim now understands Pres. Trump
is not a person who tolerates being irritated
by a worm like himself.
I could be wrong, this is part of the more arcane set of rules. I believe the parliamentarian says 2/3 rds vote for a rules change but can be overridden by a simple majority. This is murkey because the rules may not already cover this circumstance...because when they made the rules, they were reasonably close to sane.
DK
Senate requires 2/3 vote to convict. Anything less than that is an acquittal....
Yes, but I believe that is during the trial when the CJSCOTUS is seated and the senate sworn in. Before that occurs, supposedly, the senate can acquit with 51 votes.
From what I hear T Cruz is saying that you need 2/3 during an impeachment for rule changes. However, since the impeachment has not been received by the senate, ordinary rules still apply, hence the 51 vote threshold.
The constitution assumes that the articles would be delivered in a timely fashion. Since P’sy has defied that, we are in an area where the constitution is silent. Hence if the house can make up rules so can the senate.
I would prefer a quick trial where the POTUS can make his case, than a dismissal where POTUS is left on the sidelines and the rats can accuse him of cover up.
¡Ole, Leni!
Pelosi gets the asterisk(s) by her name for any number of abuses of her power...Screw you, lady!
This is a matter for reasonable disagreement.
I would prefer a summary dismissal rather than any sort of quasi-judicial "trial". From my perspective, a dismissal is superior to an acquittal. It is always a mistake to accept any premise offered by Leftists as the basis for debate or argument.
In any case there are no actual "high-crimes" or misdemeanors defined in the Articles of Impeachment. They are all about hostile opinions and third-hand allegations of activities which never occurred and which would not be crimes even if they had occurred as claimed.
Dismiss, with prejudice.
There are a couple of procedural steps being discussed and maybe conflated.
Generally, changing senate rules takes 2/3rds of senators present. This is by senate rules. There is a nuclear option for this where, in principle, a simple majority can change the rules even though the rules say it takes 2/3rds to change the rules. Cruz’s point was that it takes 67 to change an existing rule. Okay, that’s a fair summary of the usual course of rules changing business.
On the rules angle, aside from the nuclear option, making a new rule can be claimed to be “not a change of the rules.” It can also be called a change of the rules, because adding a rule is changing the rules. Oh, angels on the head of a pin, etc.
The other “procedural” point is getting to the ultimate disposal of the articles, or absence of articles. Conviction takes 2/3rds of senators present. This is in the constitution. The senate can pass a resolution and a motion that says a simple majority can dismiss the case. That is a case-by-case matter. This mechanism was present in the Clinton impeachment. Fewer than a majority voted to dismiss, and a separate vote was taken to convict. The vote to convict did not reach the 2/3rds threshold, so Clinton was acquitted.
IOW, the witch wants an Impeached president to look like a political cripple at his SOTU.
Not going to happen now that Mitch is ready to blow Nancy off the table--much to the chagrin of the super-lefties in the Dem party.
Pelosi should have been rendered powerless re further Congressional action in the next Congrssional step the instant that last vote was cast in the House.
Impeachment was done and over--now comes the Mitch and the Senate's Trial for Conviction. The Senate is totally, 100% in charge of it at this point.
Pelosi has twisted and torn the Constitution in holding back the Articles of Impeachment. She may wait for Mitch and the Senate to begin discussing Dismissal due to no Articles presented--then she will throw in the Articles into the middle of the Senate discussion like a giant legislative monkey-wrench--messing with regular Congressional procedures like the witless creature she is--a last grasp at her fraudulent power over the Senate.
Mitch and the Senate must find some way in charging Pelosi with contempt of Congress and opt for her removal from Office. She is wrecking the Founding Fathers' carefully conceived structure of the United States Constitution.
Time for a new Speaker. Why don’t you solve that crisis, Democratics? AOC should file a no confidence resolution and get the ball rolling.
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.