Posted on 12/19/2019 9:15:42 PM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long. I’ll confess: Last night, when I was first told that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was toying with the idea of not delivering the two articles of impeachment voted by the House against President Trump, I assumed it was a joke.
For these last weeks, the Democrat-dominated chamber has been in a mad rush to impeach the president. Democrats even tacked on article two — “obstruction of Congress” — because, they told us, time could not be wasted engaging in the usual negotiation and litigation over legislative demands for executive branch information. Trump is a clear and present threat to “continue” undermining our elections, we were admonished. That’s why he needs to be impeached right now. That’s why the political class cannot responsibly leave his fate up to the sovereign, the People, who will vote in November.
But now that the deed is done, it’s . . . hey, not so fast.
Pelosi and Democratic leadership have convinced themselves there may be advantage in delaying the formal, ministerial delivery of the impeachment articles — as if Mitch McConnell were in as much a hurry to receive them as Democrats were to conjure them up. The thought is that this latest strategic petulance might pressure Senator McConnell into promising a full-blown trial, including summoning as witnesses top aides of the president whom the House didn’t bother to summon because tangling over privilege issues would have slowed up the works.
So it’s not a joke, but I still have to laugh. When I was a prosecutor negotiating plea deals, I always found the most pathetic defense lawyers were the ones who acted like they were playing with the House money when, in stark reality, it was they who needed something from me. Now here’s Pelosi trying to play hard to get with McConnell who, I imagine, couldn’t care less how long Democrats want to dither.
What we’ve just seen is the most partisan impeachment in American history, every step of it politically calculated. Obviously, if Democrats perceived advantage in stretching the process out, it would still be going on. There would be more witnesses; more 300- or 600-page committee reports to try to add heft and gravity to vague allegations of inchoate misconduct; more speeches about Trump as a threat to democracy and life as we know it; etc., etc.
To the contrary, Pelosi & Co. want this train wreck in the rearview mirror ASAP. The public is indifferent and polls are edging in Trump’s favor. On our local news this morning, the third impeachment of a president of the United States in American history couldn’t crack the top stories — it came in behind cold weather (in December) and the rescue of an elderly man in a gym by a couple of off-duty cops.
No one, of course, has to explain this to McConnell. In public, at least, he’s not a laughing-his-head-off kinda guy, but if he were, he would be.
It’s hard to believe the Speaker’s latest stunt will go on for very long. In the Senate this morning, the Democrats’ minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer, renewed his demands about trial procedures, discovery, and witness testimony. There was no discernible hint of doubt that the House would soon deliver its impeachment articles, such as they are.
But since we’ll be playing trivial pursuit for a more few hours (days?), we might as well ask: As long as the House withholds the impeachment articles from the Senate, has Trump been impeached?
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action, but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally transfers jurisdiction.
Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of impeachment articles.
So it’s all well and good for the Speaker to hold up the works that Democrats, five minutes ago, were breathlessly telling us had to be carried out with all due haste. But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?
Sure, it’s a stupid question . . . but we’re living in stupid times.
I see what you did there. LOL.
No the articles have to be delivered to the Senate for him to be impeached. It’s like any piece of legislation, if it doesn’t come out of the representative body (i.e., it isn’t “passed” but instead is “held”) it is considered dead.
You are right about what the constitution says. However, my understanding is that the senate has approved rules on impeachment that they have to follow, or vote to change. Part of those rules, require receiving transmittal of formal impeachment charges from the house. And secondly, require the house to have appointed managers to prosecute the case.
The senate can change those rules, like Pelosi did at the beginning of 2019 regarding impeachment in the house. I have read conflicting information on whether the senate needs 51 or 67 votes to change the rules.
no
Some of the criticism I’ve heard raises more questions:
If the House of Representatives is 1/2 of Congress (and the “lower” chamber at that), how can there be “Obstruction of Congress”? In the President’s defense, he can negate Congressional Obstruction by cooperating with the other chamber. It would seem that the charge would be “Obstruction of the House of Representatives”, and that the Obstruction charge passed would require defiance of both chambers to constitute “Congress”.
Second, it has been said that by the actions of this House, that Presidents serve only at the pleasure of the House, as constituted, at any given time. By her acts to withhold the transfer of charges as passed by a majority of the House to the Senate, the Speaker has positioned herself as the sole arbiter of whether or not a President can maintain his office. Her actions seem Tyrannical on their face, and precisely what the framers wanted to avoid.
Coffee
This guy from Harvard who wrote this article was one of the three Dem expert witnesses. The younger guy.
Actually, he’s Class of 98.
Two can play this game. Impeachment doesn't happen until Pelosi transfers them? Then it doesn't happen until the Senate accepts them, because in neither case can it be said they were delivered.,
It makes perfect sense. It is a process and if the house doesn’t want to complete the process they are saying that they are stopping the process.
In 1993 there was an impeachment of a judge and it was only a committee who held the hearing and reported out to the Senate for a vote. The judge sued and lost at SCOTUS because the Senate can hold the impeachment trial in the manner it chooses.
Hmmmm We always called that , lost your place.
I still believe the scorned wench known as Nasty Pelousy vowed revenge when Trump embarrassed her in front her family and subordinates during the long government shutdown by cancelling their all expenses paid military flight to far away countries during the Christmas holidays.
He was right to do it but she will never get over her butthurt over it. Too bad so sad for her. Grow up beyotch and do your job or go away.
All the dems in the House have proven is they are unfit to govern a playground which is where juveniles like them are normally found.
Yes this is true the Senate can conduct the trial as it choses and even without all members present in the chamber. Those attending must convict with a 2/3 vote. The only constitutional rule for the trial is that the Chief justice must preside. Mitch sets the agenda for the Senate.
For impeaching the President the Chief Justice must preside over the Senate trial.
You lose your place, too?
BTW - never heard the phrase "lost your place" on FR.
I've seen your nick before. Don't have a negative or positive reaction.
I'm one of The Old Ones, just so you know. And I know how to find out stuff quickly about FR user assertions. ;-)
If someone is indicted and the prosecution never goes to court, then it counts for nothing.
I was referring to playing games growing up, you do your thing and I will do mine and we will all answer to Jim
So I went and looked that up.
The part about Janet Reno freaked me out.
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.