Bill of attainder.
McConnell (in my dearm): Rules? Ok, we’ll use Shitt’s rules. I get to say who speaks, who needs to shutup, and what witnesses y’all can call. It’s only fair.
my Question is if the impeachment is not delivered to the senate before the new congress starts does it die when the new congressional term starts if it does die in this way does that mean Trump was never impeached
Every ba kyard or constitutional lawyer can argue both sides of this till they are blue in the face. Thats why we have a chief justice and supreme court to settle this issue
I assume that if they do not send over the Articles to the Senate, and if some have speculated, try to hold them over in hopes of the Dems winning back the Senate in 2020 and take control in 2021 ... that the Articles would expire with the seating of the new Congress in 2021.
Then they would have to redo the Impeachment process all over again.
If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered to Senate, Did Impeachment Happen?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When a tree falls in the woods with no witness present, does it make a sound?
Interesting that we are reduced to koans on Impeachment.
What happened is that a collective of hysterical politicians conducted a pseudo impeachment.
Question: What is making these Dems so hysterical?
What really DID happen in the Ukraine? We are abiout to find out. Therefore Pelosi has put the entire vehicle of the Dem party into a skid that cannot stop. You can smell the burning rubber all the way to Kiev.
___________
Personally, I heard overnight from a few sources that they do need to be delivered. It is an essential part of the House's obligation. But ...... there are a lot of opinions on this. And I am just (mostly) listening.
You want a glass of milk.... you must first get it from the cow.
Articles were passed to impeach the President. But if not taken to the Senate the impeachment articles should be dismissed with prejudice.
As is always the case when we are dealing with a Constitutional matter, we should start with the Constitution. It says. (commas count) - “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
From this wording we see distinctly highlighted the two processes, the objective being removal from office. So, clearly there is an ‘impeachment,’ which has occurred and a ‘conviction,’ which has not.
What is more important in the clause is the wording which requires BOTH impeachment and conviction to be based on “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Obviously Nancy’s articles fail the Constitutional test miserably. That is why POTUS needs to take these articles to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately. To quote the Maestro, what the hell has he got to lose?
Maybe no one wants to be a manager?
The vote was taken. Trump has been impeached.
As the impeachment was an act of treason, they do NOT get to take it back. They will all hang for it.
Typical D screwup.
Long may they waver.
If a frog decided to jump off the lily pad and never jumped, is the decision rendered meaningless?
He’s only mostly impeached.
McCarthy has completely missed the major point. By the U. S. Constitution, all citizens are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. If Nan fails to turn over the impeachment charges, not only is Trump not impeached, he is INNOCENT!
Regarding Pelosi's requirement for "fairness" and Ginsburg's claim of partisanship:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
-PJ