Posted on 12/20/2019 9:10:11 AM PST by COUNTrecount
'He just got impeached. He'll be impeached FOREVER.' Nancy Pelosi taunts Donald Trump as crisis over his Senate trial lurches into a third day
Nancy Pelosi taunted Donald Trump, saying he will be 'impeached forever'
'He just got impeached. He'll be impeached forever. No matter what the Senate does,' she told the Associated Press in an interview
Trump's lawyers are looking into a legal argument he is not impeached because Pelosi has not formally transmitted articles of impeachment to the Senate
Trump has claimed Pelosi is afraid to send the impeachment articles to the Senate because of witnesses Republicans may call
Oh pfft,' Pelosi told Politico. 'Fear is never a word used with me'
Pelosi: 'I'm never afraid and I'm rarely surprised'
Lawmakers leave for their holiday recess on Friday with no clear way out of the logjam over how to set parameters for Trump's Senate trial
Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer said they are at an impasse
Pelosi downplayed the latest crisis on Capitol Hill where a bicameral brawl broke out of the president's impeachment trial in the Senate after the speaker did not formally transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday they are at an impasse over the procedures for Trump's trial while the president demanded immediate action and claimed Pelosi hasn't sent the articles because she fears Republicans will call witnesses who will damage the Democrats' case.
'Oh pfft,' Pelosi told Politico when asked if she was 'too afraid' to send the articles.
'Fear is never a word used with me. You should know right away,' she said. 'I'm never afraid and I'm rarely surprised.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The Senate can have separate votes on whether the individual is guilty of the crimes, and then if they should be removed from office after being found guilty. In practice, that's rarely done, I think they only did it once or twice in the 30s or something. I argued it should have been done in the Clinton impeachment, and still feel that way. There was no chance the GOP would get the 2/3rd majority to actually remove Clinton, but the evidence was pretty clear he WAS actually Guilty of Perjury, and was basically punished as such in the private sector when he was stripped of his law license.
Some on "our side" are now retroactively buying the BS that Clinton's impeachment was pure political theater and the GOP just did it so they could say they could call Clinton an "impeached President". I call BS on that. My views haven't changed. I still support impeaching Clinton, and oppose impeaching Trump (had Trump committed ACTUAL crimes, I would support impeachment regardless of how good the economy is or how good a job he's doing in office. I'm tired of both sides flip-flopping on their "principles" depending who's in power. I said in 1998 that it doesn't matter how well the economy is doing, and I still feel that way)
When Jeff Van Drew was still a Democrat, he pointed out the major differences between the Clinton and Trump impeachments. While they were both dismissed as "partisan politics", passed almost entirely along party lines, and the opposition party accused of wanting to "undo the election", the BIG difference Clinton was in trouble for very serious wrongdoing and there was no doubt on either side that Clinton actually did the things he was accused of (lying about getting blowjobs from an intern his daughter's age and covering it up). Every RAT politician at the time who opposed impeachment nevertheless admitted Clinton's actions were "reprehensible" but simply said they didn't "rise to the level of impeachment" and tried to move to have him Censured and formally reprimanded by Congress instead. The same can be said of the Andrew Johnson impeachment too, minus the "serious wrongdoing" (there was no doubt Andrew Johnson was actually guilty of violating the Tenure of Office Act and ignoring the law that specified he needed to get Congresses permission before firing a cabinet member... of course the law was later found to be unconstitutional and repealed, but it was still in effect at the time of his impeachment). The Articles of Impeachment against Trump, on the other hand, would be laughed out of any real legal proceeding and he was basically impeached for "being elected", and NOBODY thinks he committed any "crimes" except the Democrats.
The fact the Trump impeachment differs from the Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton impeachments as the "crimes" Trump is accused of are made up and have NO evidence to support them, I would argue that the Senate needs to have them Dismissed entirely by lack of merit, and Censure those in power who recklessly pushed for an impeachment with zero evidence. It would send a strong message to future Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, NOT to use the impeachment process frivolously just because you dislike the person who got elected.
There are only two definitions, the one 99.99999999999999% use and the one the “expert” at Harvard who was a Nadler witness, made up this week. And now some people here think they have discovered something no one ever knew about for 230 years.
I think you’re right.
“Impeachment” means “to charge.” Those charges may carry what the House wants for sentencing (”cannot hold office, etc.”), but it is the Senate that finds whether guilty and if found guilty, what sentence will be.
This whole thing is a sham.
Good post.
It truly goes to the personal, because how many people have been watching this mess and thinking, “What if that were *me*!”
Innocent folks know toxic office politics when they see it, as many have experienced what it’s like to be railroaded by an insecure, incompetent manager, or sabotaged by a resentful queen bee coworker, on and on.
Bingo. So even though the Andrew Johnson impeachment was all partisan politics and attempts to remove him because he was a RAT president blocking the GOP's reconstruction efforts, the reality is he technically DID break the law he was accused of breaking, and thus the Impeachment had legal standing. In both the cases of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton (and probably the other dozen or so OTHER federal impeachments), there was NO QUESTION the President DID commit the acts he was accused of (firing his Secretary of War in direct violation of the Tenure of Office Act that he was legally bound to obey at the time in Johnson's case, and lying and covering up an affair with an intern his daughter's age in Clinton's case). The debate was whether that merited removing him from office.
Trump's impeachment is unprecedented because there is zero evidence he did anything wrong and his "crimes" were made up by the RAT Congressman and would be laughed out of any real legal proceeding.
>> I think you’re right. “Impeachment” means “to charge.” Those charges may carry what the House wants for sentencing (”cannot hold office, etc.”), but it is the Senate that finds whether guilty and if found guilty, what sentence will be. <<
A small number of FReepers can't seem to accept this, and are now making up their own definition of impeachment so they can claim Trump wasn't really impeached. It's silly, they are letting the RATS get under their skin. Using their logic (that its not actually impeachment unless the Senate convicts the President) then NO previous President was impeached and they are retroactively claiming Bill Clinton wasn't impeached. I don't recall a single FReeper insisting "Clinton wasn't impeached because the Senate didn't convict" over the last 20 years, and if you had, you'd likely be accused of being a liberal troll and zotted on here. Come of to think of it, I don't recall any Dims trying to claim Clinton wasn't impeached either. I did find it amusing how before Clinton's impeachment, the RATs swore up and down that impeachment was "The political equivalent of execution" and must NEVER be done, then after the impeachment they shrugged their shoulders and said it was no big deal (Clinton himself said he felt "not bad" after hearing he had been impeached)
>> This whole thing is a sham. Nasty pelosi has not delivered the case nor the managers to present the case. <<
>> The Senate can “invalidate” the impeachment. <<
Exactly right as well. As I noted, the difference between THIS impeachment and past ones is that it has no legal standing whatsoever, so the Senate should not give it the dignity of a full trial with an up and down Guilty/Not Guilty vote on the "charges" of Trump's "crimes". There should be a full and public hearing with GOP witnesses (RAT can call witnesses as well, assuming the RATs actually appoint House Managers, which so far they refuse to do), exposing the fact the "charges" are completely groundless and have zero evidence, then a motion should be made to immediately Dismiss all the charges due to lack of merit and no legal standing, which can easily be passed (53-47 if its along party lines, though in an ideal world some sane RAT senators would realize they should stop digging when they're in a hole, give up this sham and the final vote would be more like 58-42), and have the Chief Justice issue a statement that the trial has been dismissed and that the articles have been "Terminated with extreme prejudice" and can never be brought before the U.S. Senate again. If the GOP regains control of the House of Representatives after 2020, there should an immediate motion to Censure Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi (and again, a Censure can be passed by simple majority vote) forcing them to stand in the well of the House on public television as they are condemned by Congress of reckless use of impeachment powers. That was immediately discourage any and all future congresses from passing frivolous impeachment articles in the future.
Trump would not only go down in history as the first President to win re-election after being Impeached, but the first and only impeachment in U.S. history that was dismissed and vacated by the Senate due to lack of evidence.
This so-called “impeachment” is the SECOND thinly veiled coup d’etat of the Trump Presidency by the Delusional Lying Left.
The MO of the Delusional Lying Left is they can’t beat us - Patriots - in the debate in the forum of ideas when we Patriots have a spokesman like Trump who actually stands up to these weasels and debates them. So their only other choice is to try to kill us - Trump - illegally politically or physically.
The Left are phony hypocritical thugs. And they’re really not coming after Trump. They’re coming after YOU AND I - Patriots. And they’re coming after us PATRIOTS because they HATE AMERICA.
FIGHT TO WIN FELLOW PATRIOTS!!!!
This South Park-style video summarizes the RAT impeachment hearings pretty well:
https://www.facebook.com/theunitedspot/videos/2524537594537133/
Dear Botoxed B*tch: you are a petty, nasty, and vicious woman, an embarrassment to all women.
You think you have the upper hand, but Trump keeps kicking your saggy nasty @ss over and over again. You’re too senile and ridiculous to figure out reality.
Take your saggy boobs, Sharpie Pen eyebrows, and ugly dentures and go back to your feces-laden district!
Yeah, Nancy... that may be true.
But he’ll be re-elected... and YOU, Nancy you dumb old broad, will STILL be nothing more than the moronic asshole from San Francisco that you were the you started this shit.
Karma is a strange thing, Nancy. Can’t wait to see you in the ass.
No, I am certain conviction=removal, otherwise conviction is entirely pointless.
I am nearly certain on the disqualification point as well, I’m sure you are right in your recollections but regardless of whether the House recommends disqualification or not I believe that is entirely up to the Senate. According to Wikipedia only 3 (Judges) have ever been disqualified, the last in 2010. It doesn’t mention any failed disqualification votes that may have taken place. Alcee Hastings was notably not disqualified and was subsequently elected to the House by the wonderful people of Fort Lauderdale. There were an absurd number of separate impeachment articles against Hastings but they did not even vote on disqualification.
I was a young whippersnapper in 1998 so I don’t know how I would have felt about it with a fully developed brain, I do recall Slick’s approval rating went UP thanks to the media stroking him and the strong economy, and wondered why an incumbent Al Gore would be a good idea for the 2000 election. In hindsight however it was a terrible idea that did not help us at all, likely cost Al D’Mato his Senate seat.
He unquestionably perjured himself (and admitted it, which is why democrats cooing about his “contrite” behavior in comparison to Trump are making an invalid point) but was it serious enough to be impeached over?
If I am being fair and not partisan, perhaps not. I have to honestly say I likely wouldn’t think so if it was a President I liked that did the same thing.
There are many more serious crimes I believe he committed that he could have been impeached on, the Chinese nuclear thing anyone? But the evidence was not there.
As for Johnson, the Tenure of Office Act was some unconstitutional BS. But I likely would have supported his removal anyway on a partisan basis. ;-)
Back then the convention delegates chose the VP with minimal input from the nominee but damn what a horrendous mistake Andrew Johnson was. The VP has 2 purposes, (Senate tie breaking and acting/succeeding to the top job) both of which are extremely contraindicated to having someone from the other party. A cabinet post would have been a better sup to the War Democrats.
And I mean damn, it wasn’t even the first time it happened. Did none of them remember John Tyler? Tyler was officially a Whig but was clearly a WINO who broke with Jackson on nullification and executive power rather than any disagreement with democrat policies or fondness for Whig ones, and he got Harrison’s whole term and governed as a democrat.
Proof positive of elderly cancer survivor John McCain’s insanity in wanting Lieberman.
As to this impeachment, lets put partisanship aside and just look at the charges
“Abuse of Power” is some vague BS that IIRC the founders SPECIFICALLY wanted to avoid as an impeachable offense. 81 Republicans voted against the failed Clinton Abuse of Power article.
And of course it has not been determined that Congress is entitled to what Trump declined to provide them so that charge is also nonsense.
They can’t even come up with a real charge. I would have been dismayed and worried about negative electoral effects if Republicans had tried to impeach Obama in 2011 over similar such nonsense.
If they were clever they’d try to impeach Trump over the bump-stock ban executive order, we wouldn’t be able to defend that, LOL.
If the GOP hadn’t impeached Bubba the Rapist over perjury in 1998, the base would’ve sat out the elections and lost Congress. But the real problem is that he wasn’t impeached over the REAL issue, that being Red China’s interference in the 1996 elections, the sales of nuclear secrets to the Red China Army, and so forth. All nice and neatly covered up by John Glenn and the motley crew of traitorous scum on the Gov’t Oversight Committee chaired by Fred Thompson.
Thompson should’ve gone nuclear on their asses, instead thinking the Dems would go along with a real investigation a la Watergate. It certainly opened Fred’s eyes and made him sick of being in such a place with such scummy Derp State characters.
Actually, conviction does not equal removal. Finding guilt or innocence ("conviction") is separate from Judgment and Sentence ("removal").
For example, if you're tried and found guilty of murder, the judgment and sentence still has to be ordered (ex. prison for a term, or prison for life, or death, etc.).
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.U.S. Const., Art I, Sec.3.
The Constitution doesn't mandate what the the judgment and sentence should be, only that it is limited. So although the sentence would probably be removal, it doesn't have to be. For instance, the convicted party could be sentenced to removal and the removal suspended. Lots of different possible outcomes. Likewise, a DQ sentence is also possible.
The REAL issue here is that since the Constitution requires a crime for impeachment (Art. II,, Sec 4), the process falls under the criminal procedures laid out in the 4th and 5th Amendments to even START an investigation. Here, these Delusional Dems had NO articulatable (not vague) reasonable suspicion, as you point out, to even start an investigation. The whole process from the beginning was unconstitutional.
I say, impeach the impeachers.
I’m a little late to the game, but here are m two cents:
Conviction by the Senate of an impeached “Officer of the Unied States” automatically results in such officer being removed from office. I would argue that disqualification from holding a future Office of the United States should be understood to be automatic upon conviction as well, even though, as has been mentioned, the Constitution’s language on the “judgment of impeachment” is restrictive in nature (”shall extend no further than”); the judgment of impeachment was couched in restrictive terms in irder to maje clear that Congress couldn’t imprison or forfeit the assets of officers convicted in impeachment cases
Please note that, b the very terms, cases of impeachment do not involve “punishing” the misbehaving officer (the Constitution speaks of “judgment of impeachment” but of the possibility of subsequent “judgment *and punishment*” according to law for such crimes), so impeachment is really about protecting the public from someone who proved himself unworthy of holding an Office of the United States. Thus, whille some past impeachmens may have left out the disqualification language, I think that had a future president attempted to reinstate to an Office of the United States such impeached and convicted officer that the courts would declare such officer to have been constitutionally unqualified.
Regarding Alcee Hastings, it is not correct that he is allowed to serve in Congress because his impeachment and conviction did not mention disqualification. I do not know what Hastings’ impeachment judgment actually says, but even had it expressly stated what I believeis superfluous (that he is disqualified from holding a future Office of the United States), Hasings would not be barred by the Constitution from serving in Congress, because Representative and Senator are not “Officers of the United States.” This is clear based not only from history (the Framers did not want congressmen being banned from future service because they wanted to protect future John Wilkeses (the British John Wilkes case was instructive in all sorts of ways, from impeachment to legislative expulsions to many of the individual rights later declared formally in the Bill of Rights), but also in the text and structure of the Constitution. For example, in the Constitution, the persons disqualified from serving as presidential electors include “Senators, Representatives, and Officers of the United States,” while the persons subject to impeachment are “the President, Vice President and othe Officers of the United States.” (My quotes are from memory, but are substantially correct.) So members of Congress are not Officers of the U.S., and thus not subject to impeachment; and membership in the House or Senate are not Offices of the U.S. (sometimes referred to as Offices of Honor, Trust or Profit under the U.S.) from which an impeached and convicted officer is disqualified. This is why a Representative or Senator cannot be impeached (they instead are subject to expulsion by a 2/3 vote in their own house, with no disqualification for future election or holding of other office, and with no participation by the other house), and why an impeached and convicted federal judge like Hastings can serve in Congress.
As for the possibility of the Senate dismissing the impeahment counts “with extreme prejudice,” that would not stop a future House from impeaching President Trump again, even for the same “crimes” (sic), nor would it stop a fuure Senate from holding a trial if the House impeaches again. And if President Trump wins reelection but the House stays Democrat (which is the likeliest result of the next elections, although Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are helping our chances of retaking the House), then it is foreseeable that President Trump will be impeached again during his second term irresoective of what the Sebate does in January.
To clarify, Conviction of the charged ("impeached") crime is separate from Sentencing ("removal' and/or other sanctions). Nevertheless, as you point out, the Constitution mandates the Judgment and Sentence of removal upon conviction (Art. II, Sec 4).
It also allows but doesn't mandate DQ and limits other sanctions (Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 7).
Also, note that a federal statute mandating DQ would prevail since it would not violate the Constitution's softer allowance. But unless there is such a federal statute, DQ would be up to the Senate.
Great summary & research.
Re: Alccccceee
Doh! You are correct, "Office or Profit or Trust" is understood to exclude Congress.
Re: Disqualification
Interesting, the wording indeed suggests that it was intended as mandatory punishment
Re: The House
It's not easy but I'm gonna maintain that if Trump wins (by more than a teeny tiny fluky margin) we will likely get at least a narrow majority. I see ticket splitting reaching a modern nadir.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it, I can't stomach this ghost of BS past with GOP House under performing the top of the ticket. ;-p
In any case, we must say it, and make it real!
This is also good news for Senator Martha McSally whom I maintain will win provided the state isn't going D for President, which it shouldn't. Maybe if she were running against Sinema (the strongest rat in the state despite what anyone here says about her) but Mr. Gabby Giffords is not a worldbeater.
Maine is the only Senate race which I think has a good chance to split, with Collins winning and Trump not carrying the State. Though he could well carry and it and she certainly could lose but she should maintain enough crossover support to outdo him by a few points.
He’s still your President, you old twit.
Cue the Ursula tape from The Little Mermaid.
I tend to agree on the House, but right now McSally doesn’t even have a pulse here. She is down 3 in the last poll and is literally invisible. NO ONE has seen her. GOP clubs can’t get her, she won’t go on Broomhead, and so on.
I have never seen a worse candidate-—save Roy Moore-—in my entire life. Fortunately, we’ll pick up AL and probably MI.
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.