Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What you are speaking about is a House action that initiates Senate action. For articles to be delivered the House needs to appoint managers, the Senate can change that articles don’t need to be delivered (aka impeachment managers named by the House which is part of the House action of delivery of articles), for the proceedings to begin. Again, as the Senate rule show articles only need to be delivered and whatever that process includes on the House’s side to complete is on them. If they don’t want to name impeachment managers, the Senate easily just changes the rules that a vote is needed and not delivery of the articles to start proceedings. The Democrats have no leverage if McConnell acts and changes the rule that articles don’t need to be delivered.

We all enjoy a Constitutionally protected right to a speedy trial, not an endless stay in some jail. If no one wants to act Trump can ask for relief with the SCOTUS.
 
Last edited:
Nope, articles need to be delivered. House can name impeachment managers still if the articles are not physically delivered the Senate rules are clear they can’t proceed, your missing the most important factor here. McConell will change the rule to only a vote is needed to proceed, so as not to hold Trump hostage which the Dems are clearly doing, so again the Dems have not real legal authority here at this point!
 
The senate rules are clear the articles need to be delivered before proceeding. If the House doesn’t want to select impeachment managers and submit the articles then the game is over. Impeachment never happened. Impeachment doesn’t happen until the Senate has the articles.
 
I wouldn’t say “never happened”, more like it’s stuck mid birth.
 
Wait, are you saying the Democrat “expert” who testified is saying there is no impeachment?

So either
(A) There is no impeachment or
(B) Democrat “expert” was incompetent all along

What a Schiff Show.
 
dvdjs said:
Someone did say that. Also said:>
Click to expand...
And they said: "“The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work,” Feldman wrote. “But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. 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. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution. Althought I disagree with the both parts, as I pointed out two Articles in the Constitution in previous posts.
 
Last edited:
The Dems accomplished what they set out to do.Leave a stain on an otherwise successful president. That’s more a statement of their petty revengeful natures than it is on President Trump. He doesn’t feel impeached and polls show that sentiment is supported by the electorate. He will give his State of the Union address in February. Sitting there will be the same petty individuals that impeached him.
Can’t wait to see them squirm
 
Thank God Trump has courage. He makes his supporters proud. The Dems will never squirm, they are too bold.
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
The Dems accomplished what they set out to do.Leave a stain on an otherwise successful president. That’s more a statement of their petty revengeful natures than it is on President Trump. He doesn’t feel impeached and polls show that sentiment is supported by the electorate. He will give his State of the Union address in February. Sitting there will be the same petty individuals that impeached him.
Click to expand...
I had forgotten about the State of the Union address. If the House hasn’t sent the articles to the Senate by then I would expect Trump to point that out in a most unflattering way. I haven’t watched one of those addresses in years, but the prospect of seeing Trump skewer the Dems for “impeaching” him and then not sending off the charges to be tried in the Senate might be enough to compel me to watch. There are a few more acts left in this melodrama.
 
Regarding the State of the Union address, Trump wouldn’t have to do much more than cite Alan Dershowitz (Democrat):

“It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people…Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people.”

So, here’s a proposal: as @mrad25 has pointed out several times, the Senate rules can be changed with only a majority vote (thanks to Harry Reid), so, while the House rules require the articles to be sent up with managers, the Senate could vote to hold the trial without waiting.

They already have (unanimous, bipartisan) rules for impeachments, all they have to change is the rule for starting the process. So suppose the Senate votes to start the impeachment trial after the State of the Union address? This lets Trump attack the House Dems for accusing him of crimes and not permitting him the opportunity to clear his name, which would surely happen when the trial is held in the Senate.

If Nancy doesn’t send managers then the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. If she does send managers then she’s gained nothing by putting this off, and actually aided Trump by justifying comments he might make about the fairness of the process in the SotU speech.

Given that the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote one might think the Dems could abort the process by walking out and not voting…except what is required is 2/3 of the members present. It (The Constitution, that is) doesn’t even require a quorum.

Then, after all this, the Senate committees are free to hold hearings and call as witnesses all those the Dems wouldn’t allow during the House “investigation.” This just gets better and better.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top