Pelosi should block impeachment trial until White House is forced to reveal all

[dan_bgblue]

If the House had done their job, and not happily run thru the motions that they thought would carry the day instead of doing their job and taking their inquiry requests to the courts they would not have to hand off that job to the Senate which, imo, is rightly ignoring the requests.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/opini...lis/index.html

[CitizenBBN]

The House refused to follow any kind of proper process. They didn't call witnesses that could have been called, ostensibly b/c they were afraid they wouldn't be on the right side (John Bolton) after all, and witnesses the White House blocked could have been pursued in the DC Circuit and weren't.

This is all just a drama. They want to drag this out, use it to cover up the positives out there for Trump like trade and the economy, throw anything they can against him to dirty him up.

They know he'll never actually be removed, so this is all just for show. The problem is they are ignoring convention, fairness and now the Constitution to put on their show.

The Clinton impeachment was also all for show, and was just as foolish, but at least they followed the procedures. This has gone from bad (Clinton's impeachment) to worse.

[Doc]

They didnt take it to court so they could have more Trumped up (pun intended) charges, the "Obstruction of Congress".

[Doc]

What I would do if I were the Senate, pass a bylaw stating any impeachment from the house be delivered within a certain time frame or it is null and void. House sets its rules, and so does the Senate.

[dan_bgblue]

The lady dithers on camera

[dan_bgblue]

She needs to take the next express broom out of DC for the Holidays

[CitizenBBN]

Mitch is really enjoying the catbird's seat on this one. Like he said, what leverage does she have to make him accept something (impeachment articles) he doesn't even want?

An impeachment trial just bogs down his hard driving mission to stock the federal judiciary with judges who actually believe in the rule of law.

If they do nothing he's going to wait till the new year, maybe right before the State of the Union, to pass the new NAFTA, so Trump can sign it and sing out about it in the speech. He'd be nothing but delighted if the Dems sit on this till the cows come home.

Given the timetable now, he may sit on it till past that anyway, or rush it through to a basic "no confidence" vote and see if he can get 51 to just dismiss it outright.

I get why people have issues with Mitch, he's been there a long time and is a big time insider and hasn't been as true to the core principles of small government and fiscal responsibility that most here believe in, but when he's in your corner in the Senate you have a really steep hill to climb. He's an outstanding Majority leader from a purely strategic standpoint. The fact that he can flat play the game is often a strike against him, but you can't deny he can flat play it, and right now the GOP and Mitch holding the Senate is essential to stemming this next wave of leftist Green New Lunacy.

He and Trump have done exactly what most GOP voters I know wanted them to do: keep the economy running and do everything possible to put conservatives on the bench. the SCOTUS pick was a huge factor in many voting for Trump, and they have absolutely not let us down on that issue. To the contrary they are shining.

So Mitch would be happy if impeachment just went away, b/c it just ties up Senate time he needs to appoint judges.

[Catfan73]

According to the Constitution he’s impeached. Whether he gets removed from office or not is another story but the power to impeach lies with the House.

Murkowski is expressing some qualms now about McConnell’s vision of a Senate trial. Stay tuned.

[dan_bgblue]

According to the Constitution he’s impeached.

I will not argue that point as I have not studied the language in the constitution about this, but there is a difference of opinion among constitutional scholars and legal begals. I did find it amusing to see Pelosi stand in front of reporters and tell them multiple times that the President was impeached. Her statements did not answer a question, nor were they in context of the discussion, she just blurted out, the president is impeached, or he is impeached 3 or 4 times in a matter of minutes. It appeared to me that she was making a point for purely political reasons.

[CitizenBBN]

According to the Constitution he’s impeached. Whether he gets removed from office or not is another story but the power to impeach lies with the House.

Murkowski is expressing some qualms now about McConnell’s vision of a Senate trial. Stay tuned.

This is the difference between objectivity and partisanship.

The truth is it's not clear if he's impeached or not. As Dan said there's a lot of disagreement among scholars, and even one of the Democrats own anti-Trump witnesses says he's not impeached if the resolution goes nowhere.

A vote was held to "impeach" the President, but is he actually "impeached" if that vote goes nowhere and no action is taken? It's unclear, and honestly it's semantics regardless.

Impeaching the President is a specific act: the House has determined it thinks the POTUS should be removed from office, and it becomes the prosecutor in a trial held in the Senate. If there is never a trial, the House never sends people to prosecute, then all we have is the opinion of the House, which is really more the equivalent of a censure.

Murkowski is going to play the fence as always, but that won't motivate Mitch to give up the high ground.

I can tell you want there to be leverage here, but there isn't. If Mitch does nothing and Pelosi does nothing b/c of it, then Trump and Mitch win. it's that simple. Impeachment will look to the average voter like a giant waste of time with the Dems not pursuing it, and only their base will blame Mitch, but they were going to blame him anyway unless Trump was removed, which isn't in the cards.

This was always the problem with impeachment, which is why Pelosi and the leadership fought it. Now at this point it becomes a GOP party. Dont' send the articles and Trump wins by default, do send them and the GOP gets to determine the makeup of the trial that will inevitably exonerate Trump.

The political motivation to impeach Trump from the day he won the election was always wrong and misplaced b/c impeachment without a successful trial only helps the President, and it won't be successful based on partisan interpretations. It would take something really clear, something bipartisan.

The Dems knew this b/c that's exactly what happened with Clinton, which is why they knew that just impeaching Trump for its own sake was a loser, esp. with average voters.

So we don't really know if he is "impeached" or not right now, we do know there's almost no chance he is removed,and we know that the longer Pelosi plays this game the more political this all looks, which is why the polls are shifting already in key states.

This was a political mistake. And the GOP is making the same one, just not as obviously. Focus on things people care about, not the endless beltway swamp naval gazing that only interests the elites of Washington and hardcore base voters. None of them decide the winners.

[dan_bgblue]

Here is one opinion for not being impeached yet, and this from a liberal democrat who testified before the house impeachment party

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-dona...red-to-senate/

[Catfan73]

I don’t understand the big deal about calling if impeachment or not. Two articles of impeachment (charges) were brought before the House and passed. That is by definition impeachment. The next step is trial in the Senate. The impeachment part is over and done with.

[dan_bgblue]

I find this to be amusing as both the "experts" graduated from Harvard Law

The White House is considering making the case that Mr. Trump has not been impeached based on an opinion piece by Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman on Bloomberg's opinion page Thursday. Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office.

"Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial," Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. "Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial."

"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all," Feldman wrote.


"If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn't truly impeached at all," Feldman wrote.

And the rebuttal

However, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe wrote on Twitter that he disagreed with Feldman's analysis, saying that "under Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 5, he was impeached on Dec 18, 2019. He will forever remain impeached. Period." That portion of the Constitution says that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

[Catonahottinroof]

This is the political equivalent of indicting a ham sandwich.....

[dan_bgblue]

Section 3

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

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.

[dan_bgblue]

This is the entire language from Section 2 pertaining to impeachment by the House

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

[CitizenBBN]

I don’t understand the big deal about calling if impeachment or not. Two articles of impeachment (charges) were brought before the House and passed. That is by definition impeachment. The next step is trial in the Senate. The impeachment part is over and done with.

Right now a grand jury has indicted someone, but the prosecutor has declined to have the guy arrested, or file any formal charges. It's legal limbo.

But it's absolutely not "done with" until an actual action is taken. Otherwise it is meaningless just like a grand jury indictment. Doesn't go on your record, or prohibit your rights, or anything else.

In that sense it would be like censure. It's condemning, but not binding. I don't really care what anyone calls it, but without an action it's most definitely meaningless, esp. given it was all voted for by Democrats. We were already aware of their opinion of Trump, so them putting that opinion to vote with no action is just sophistry.

[dan_bgblue]

I am not a legal scholar and am not sure I consider the 2 guys from Harvard to deserve that distinction, and I view the language to boil down in layman's terms to say that the House charges the official with high crimes and misdemeanors and the Senate has the duty of determining guilt or innocence.

Does attaching the charges to the official; equal impeachment? Maybe it did back in the 1700s and maybe it does today, but the democrats are trying to carry it around as a banner representing guilt, and the word was never intended to equate to guilt.

In my defense, I did stay at 3 different Holiday Inn Express hotels last week and in each case I was more than 100 miles from home, so I was definitely an expert that that time.

[CitizenBBN]

Dan, I really liken it to the grand jury process. A prosecutor can call a grand jury, and the grand jury can indict a suspect.

But the next phase is to then file formal charges against him for a trial. If there are no formal charges, then the grand jury did indict, but it has no binding effect at all b/c it was not a trial in a court of law.

During this process the House did not see fit to provide the President any chance of a defense, or of the minority to call witnesses as they saw fit, etc. it was very much like a grand jury. That's fine, the House's role in an impeachment will be to prosecute in the Senate trial, but it's very much like a grand jury and is not itself telling of any wrongdoing.

Just like how a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, the Democrats in the House would certainly indict Trump for jaywalking. That result doesn't really have much meaning.

Their problem is they know the President, in the actual trial, will be acquitted. Which means he's innocent of the charges brought in the impeachment, at least to a degree low enough that it doesn't warrant his removal. I think that's galling to many, and for that and other reasons we thus sit here in limbo.

[dan_bgblue]

What did that ham sandwich do to you two guys?

[dan_bgblue]

"I told leader McConnell that we would not support any trial without witnesses or documents," House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday.

It is a shame that CBS reporters do not know that Chuckie is a senator.

[Doc]

"I told leader McConnell that we would not support any trial without witnesses or documents," House Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday.

It is a shame that CBS reporters do not know that Chuckie is a senator.

Its a bigger shame that he is labelled a "Leader". He is anything but

[Catonahottinroof]

Given the Kangaroo court that brought the charges in the House, I can see the same thing playing out in the Senate. McConnell doesn’t even need a majority vote for his position to win. He only needs 34 votes to acquit.

[dan_bgblue]

I would get a huge kick out of the proceedings if the Senate voted to decorate the chambers with kangaroos. and circus clowns.

[KeithKSR]

They didnt take it to court so they could have more Trumped up (pun intended) charges, the "Obstruction of Congress".

Schiff and Nadler tried to rig the proceedings and still ended up with nothing.

On January 7th Mitch should set a date for the preliminary motions for the 10th and then if they have nothing from the House they can move to dismiss.

[Owenchon]

"On January 7th Mitch should set a date for the preliminary motions for the 10th and then if they have nothing from the House they can move to dismiss."

Hmm, sounds like a plan, a master plan!

[DanISSELisdaman]

Schiff and Nadler tried to rig the proceedings and still ended up with nothing.

On January 7th Mitch should set a date for the preliminary motions for the 10th and then if they have nothing from the House they can move to dismiss.

I like this!! Make them crap or get off the pot!

[CitizenBBN]

Nah, let them stew in it. it's already become a fading issue, and now looks impotent even if it goes to the Senate. Certainly the basis for their rushed move, that Trump is an imminent threat, has been completely undermined.

[Owenchon]

"Certainly the basis for their rushed move, that Trump is an imminent threat, has been completely undermined."

Do not ever underestimate your opponent, as they say.