Senate Can Still Hold Impeachment Trial Even if House Does NOT Send the Articles over

[JimBowie1958]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to try the impeachment, and does not require it to accept it from the House formally.

Mitch McConnell can hold the trial even if Nancy never sends it to him.

Pollak: Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment | Breitbart

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.​

The Democratic Party is led by blithering idiots, while the GOP is led behind the curtain by cuck Koch sell outs.

 

[beagle9]

Nancy may have never intended to send the articles over, and figured that him being impeached by the house was enough to make their claim in the coming election, that he has been deemed a lame duck if even by one branch of government. This way she and her gang could attempt to hold his impeachment over his head till the 2020 without the possibility of him being aquitted by the Senate.

That's some sneaky corrupt thinking going on if True.

 

[Rambunctious]

Like it or not Pelosi...we don't need your articles to dismiss or hold a trial...its out of your hands now bitch....bet she didn't know that...Buuuuaaaahahahahaha!

 

[whitehall]

But does it make sense?

 

[beagle9]

But does it make sense?

What ???? Does anything these days ?

 

[JimBowie1958]

But does it make sense?

Since when has Reason ever stopped a politician from doing anything?

Why do Republicans vote to bring in more Democrat voters to turn the whole country blue?

Explain that one for me.

 

[007]

Well isn't this an interesting tidbit of information.

Regardless, I don't think anything will happen until next year.

 

[task0778]

But does it make sense?

In other words, is it more advantageous to hold a trial without the Reps from the House Dems that might appear to some to be a whitewash, or let the Dems suffer the backlash that is bound to happen as this crap continues into 2020 with no trial? I don't think this hurts Trump, he can continue to talk about a witch hunt and how his rights are being violated (which they are), and McConnell has already floated the idea of using the same rules for Trump that they used for Clinton. So it's hard to see Pelosi and the Dems coming out of this not looking like a bunch of losers (which they are).

I think this crap is not playing well in the tossup states and contested districts, and the longer it goes the more likely it is that vulnerable Dems are going to lose their seats in Congress and Pelosi loses her Speakership. Awww. If I''m McConnell I tell 'em to go pound sand, send over the Articles or not, your call. but whenever you do, Trump is still going to be acquitted and you're still gonna look like shit.

 

[Zorro!]

The Constitution gives the Senate the right to try the impeachment, and does not require it to accept it from the House formally.

Mitch McConnell can hold the trial even if Nancy never sends it to him.

Pollak: Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment | Breitbart

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.​

The Democratic Party is led by blithering idiots, while the GOP is led behind the curtain by cuck Koch sell outs.

If Trump has actually been impeached, then the U.S. Senate already has jurisdiction as the U.S. Constitution gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” If they cannot do that because the House petulantly refuses to report the charges, then Trump hasn't yet been impeached.

They may hold in case a SCOTUS seat opens, at which point they will transmit the articles in order to prevent the Senate from dealing with the vacancy, but, without a statutory crime, much less Treason, Bribery or a High Crime, the Senate should be able to make short work of the "charges".

 

[22lcidw]

A chance that is rare. The election of Trump has given us the opportunity to get many many things done for the benefit of our nation is being wasted.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If Pelosi does not appoint impeachment managers to formally present the articles to the senate there cannot be an impeachment trial. There is nothing to try. It is then a conditional impeachment. That is an impeachment predicated on the condition that it be presented. The senate can use the articles to censure the president or ignore them. They will die when congress adjourns.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The OP is wrong. There is nothing in the constitution about this. The only thing the senate can do is pass a resolution absolving the POTUS of wrongdoing. But it s NOT considered a formal acquittal. The articles of impeachment IS THE PROOF THE HOUSE DISCOVERED OF WRONGDOING. How are you going to possibly have a trail without this information?

You can't have a trial if the prosecutor refuses to present the evidence in the case.

 

[idb]

The OP is wrong. There is nothing in the constitution about this. The only thing the senate can do is pass a resolution absolving the POTUS of wrongdoing. But it s NOT considered a formal acquittal.

You can't have a trial if the prosecutor refuses to present the evidence in the case.

This is surely true.
An inquiry/trial can't be held without any charges.

 

[airplanemechanic]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

 

[Zorro!]

If Pelosi does not appoint impeachment managers to formally present the articles to the senate there cannot be an impeachment trial. There is nothing to try. It is then a conditional impeachment. That is an impeachment predicated on the condition that it be presented. The senate can use the articles to censure the president or ignore them. They will die when congress adjourns.

I wouldn't invest in this silly dispute. Pelosi knows that the argument for withholding the articles of impeachment is imbecilic. She’ll send them over just as soon as she gets a few news cycles about Senate Republican bias in Trump’s favor out of this stunt, I think.

The second article of impeachment involves obstruction of Congress. And House Democrats are going to obstruct the Senate?

The House won’t vote on impeachment managers until the new year, which means the articles won’t be delivered to the Senate until January 7 at the earliest.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This whole thing is so corrupt.

It’s really ridiculous and I hope the Dimms lose the house.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

 

[idb]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

This whole thing is so corrupt.

It’s really ridiculous and I hope the Dimms lose the house.

MAWA.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's right. There is no way a jury can determine guilt or innocence without even knowing what the defendant was charged with. And before someone says "Yea but the judge can dismiss the charges" I will quickly have to remind them that without articles given to the Senate, no formal charges have been filed.

The act of "impeachment" is not complete legally until the articles of impeachment are given to the Senate.

This is not a normal criminal process, but a Constitutional process, so the legal process analogy doesnt necessarily apply here.

A judge can throw out an indictment on its merits without a trial. McConnell can do that and nothing says he has to actually hold the trial.

And since the articles of impeachment are part of the public record, the Senate knows what what anyway.

The Constitution does not require the House to formally present charges before they vote to dismiss the charges or simply toss them out. That is simply an agreed tradition, and the Dims have spit on every tradition that gets in their way, so no reason for Republicans to be so inhibited as well.

So, if it's not a legal process why are the Republicans whining about the lack of "due process"?

Because it's supposed to be a legal process, but the Democrats made a mockery of the impeachment process, spit on the institution of the presidency and tried to tear down the Constitution's separation of powers. They showed no respect for America and they do not deserve to be respected by America.