Posted on 12/18/2019 8:44:23 PM PST by BurgessKoch
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.
She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Let the loser dem pols have their little pyrrhic victory. It means nothing. Tomorrow the slate is wiped clean leaving nothing but lots of egg on the dem pol faces.
They did this to themselves so they have no one to blame. Sore losers who stay butthurt for years and never get over it really do need rehab of some kind. I’d say permanent inpatients at a qualified psychiatric hospital with lots of Thorazine would be an appropriate response to what the House dems did.
Hilarious coming from the same people who said Trump needed to be impeached for acting like a king or a dictator.
Irony is lost on Democrats.
The moonbats aren’t celebrating. They should be jumping for joy but they’re belatedly realizing Trump will remain in office.
What then was the point of the impeachment circus tonight?
Sounds like we might find out tomorrow what McConnell intends to do.
I think if the articles of impeachment are voted on and passed, then the President is impeached. It then becomes part of the Congressional Record. Once impeached the Senate has full control of the trial. It does not matter if the House has officially transmitted the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
You don’t pay much attention
President Pence is trending on twitter...dumbasses actually think Trumps not President....weird. Maybe if the young morons would quit wishing they were black and learn to read a book, theyd know more...
These days, I can't tell who has the most marbles in their mouths.
It's a sign of old age that neither can speak with slurring their words.
-PJ
Isn't that an impeachable offense?
Maybe the entire House of Representatives should be impeached, then?
Regards,
> I believe they are required to formally present the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for review, and the trial.
Not one word in the Constitution about that, and it’s the Senate which will decide the question.
This whole shamwow process is not an Impeachment, it is an impeachment inquiry. If there were any later votes to actually impeach, I am not aware of it and I stand corrected.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/house-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-floor-vote/index.html
Good point, if they went to SCOTUS, they would have plenty of precedent on their side from the Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton impeachments (and probably all the lower offices impeached over the last 200 years, mostly federal judges). The House passing Articles of Impeachment has always resulted in the material being promptly delivered to the Senate to hold a trial, and the House appointing impeachment managers to present their case.
McConnell can announce they plan to use the same trial rules in place from the Clinton impeachment, which the RATs can't claim is "unfair" as the rules were agreed to 100-0 at the time of that impeachment.
If Pelosi and the House Dems want to break with 200 years of precedent, there should not only be a vote to dismiss the charges, but a vote to Censure Pelosi and Jerrold Nadler for reckless use of congressional powers.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
And how would they proceed to act on some vague exclamation “The President is impeached “ without seeing the particulars...
Your case couldn’t be assessed without the indictment being transmitted to the prosecution so, in essence, there wouldn’t be a case or charge to be acted on or ignored.
It would reside where it originated and no action, one way or another, could be taken...
“Submission is not required”
Uhmmm no. With no particulars they have nothing to proceed on...
“The President is Impeached “
Yeah? Let’s see your particulars, grounds, evidence, witnesses, evidence etc...
You can’t try a case without those elements so, the Senate would not ignore Nancy’s proclamation so much as they could not judge the merits of the case or weigh evidence without the particulars...
They are not required by the Constitution to pass it along to the Senate but, what would the base their decision on.
It absolutely does matter that it is transmitted otherwise it is merely a congressional record and the Senate is not required to act on anything in the record...
I don’t know that the USSC wouldn’t get involved since there is that constitutional amendment that guarantees a speedy. That would be a good point to make in a law suit to the USSC and that it only has to do with constitutional rights so it could be taken up by the USSC expeditiously without needing to go to the lower courts.
The same kind of people were worrying about whether we had a President after the 2000 election. Of course we did. His name was Clinton, he was still President until the new one was determined and sworn in.
as other have said, the USSC could order the house to send the Article to the senate based on the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
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.