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

[justoffal]

This whole thing is so corrupt.

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

What do we have a Supreme Court for?

If there are supposed to be checks and balances
over each other....
WHO IS CHECKING CONGRESS

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MIND BOGGLING

WHAT
THE
****

The check on Congress is the fact that they cannot take any real action on their own. They are of course free to exercise their first amendment rights just like everyone else. In the final analysis it will be only so much impotent rhetoric that leads to absolutely nothing and no changes whatsoever. There may well be one change though the novel way that the impeachment proceeding was used as a political tool instead of a judicial one will probably not go away.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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.

She'll send them. This ain't her first rodeo; she knows what she's doing.

Yeah just keep telling yourself that and holding onto your teddy bear. Pelosi knew what she was doing when she warned the Dems not to do this very thing but she is no longer in charge in the Democratic Party even though she holds the gavel. Lately she doesn't even sound like she knows what she's doing nevermind look like it. But you can Comfort yourself with all the false reasoning you please if it makes you feel better. Trump is going nowhere and he will be re-elected in a massive landslide.

Jo

 

[JimBowie1958]

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change.

I think that those rules only apply if the impeachment trial is conducted. IF the Majority Leader holds a vote to dismiss the charges (due to lack of evidence) passed by the House, all he needs is a majority. The Senate rules are not in effect until the House sends the articles over, but the Constitution says that the Senate can take action once the impeachment is passed. This gives McConnell a window of time to simply dismiss the impeachment due to lack of evidence if the House delays sending it to the Senate.

Besides all that, the Democrats in the House have demonstrated that the rules can be violated whenever the majority wants to.

An Impeachment Counterfactual: Could the Senate hold a trial even if the House does not transmit the Articles of Impeachment?

But what about the Senate? The Senate may argue that the appointment of the managers, and the transmission of the articles are mere formalities without constitutional significance. (A professor on the constitutional law list-serve drew an analogy between these ministerial tasks and the formal delivery of Willam Marbury's commission.) Indeed, there is no constitutional requirement that the Senate allow House managers to present the articles. The Senate could handle the proceedings however it chooses. But can the Senate reach a different conclusion than the House about whether the impeachment is final? Article I, Section 3 provides "[t]he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The Senate gets to decide how to try an impeachment.​

If the Dems do not transmit the articles of impeachment, the Senate is not obligated to follow its rules of Impeachment and can simply vote to dismiss the charges due to lack of evidence.

In fact, McConnell could simply propose to dismiss the charges if the House does not present its case by January 21st, 2020, which is plenty of time, and pass that by a simple majority vote..

 

[JimBowie1958]

It sure would be nice if we took the House, but with all these retirements, I don't know.

The Republicans will retake the House in next years elections, excluding some bizarre set of circumstances.

In 2016 Republicans got 62,984,828 voters to turn out for them, while in 2018 they only got a 50,861,970 turn out, a 19% drop in turn out of 12 million voters.

In 2016 Democrats got 65,853,514 voters to turn out for them, while in 2018 they got a 60,572,245 turn out, an 8% drop of 5 million voters.

In next years election, all those Republican voters will be back, and the Democrat moderates claim that they are not about to vote to impeach Trump will have been shown to be a total lie except for two and one of them is switching to the GOP anyway.

2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

2018 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia

The Republicans will regain the House and increase their hold on the Senate.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Is Mitch McConnell wrong when he says ..."I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all," said McConnell.

While I very well could be wrong, I have been digging into the subject the last few days and the two things that seem most relevant right now, IMO, are that 1) Senate rules do not come into effect if the House does not present its evidence, and 2) the Senate can vote to dismiss due to lack of evidence without changing any Senate rules.

In the Senate, members of either party are jurors, but not expected to be 100% impartial. How could six Democrats who are running for Trumps office to replace him, be possibly considered neutral and objective jurors?They should recuse themselves according to Dimocrat thinking.

Also, McConnell could deliberately call for a vote to dismiss while those folks are out campaigning in Iowa the day before the caucuses there, arguing in his defense that they are not impartial anyway, lol.

 

[Mac-7]

But does it make sense?

Nothing democrats do makes sense

 

[Crepitus]

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

LMAO!!!

You can't really be taking that crap seriously.

Can you?

I'm not sure what you're asking but the answer is yes of course they can hold a trial.... they absolutely do not need the permission of the House of Representatives to do it. Having said that I don't think McConnell gives two shits if Pelosi keeps those things up her skirt forever, that'll be just fine too. It's actually pretty comical when you think about it.

So after 12 months of complete and utter bullshit the new threat is to not have the impeachment hearing???? I mean dude how much more hilarious could this be?

Jo

You guys crack me up!!!

 

[JimBowie1958]

So after 12 months of complete and utter bullshit the new threat is to not have the impeachment hearing???? I mean dude how much more hilarious could this be?
Jo

You guys crack me up!!!

Dude, you BEGAN cracked up and have devolved to fragmented gravel.

 

[Crepitus]

So after 12 months of complete and utter bullshit the new threat is to not have the impeachment hearing???? I mean dude how much more hilarious could this be?
Jo

You guys crack me up!!!

Dude, you BEGAN cracked up and have devolved to fragmented gravel.

That's nice kid,. You run along now, K?

 

[Hellbilly]

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.

Fake news.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toomuchtime_]

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Biden's threat to Ukraine was a bipartisan Congress-approved position to remove a prosecutor that was internationally acknowledged as corrupt.
There was no scandal.

Executive privilege isn't mentioned but to think that the Framers would approve the tool they intended as the final mechanism to rein in an out of control or dangerous President could be nullified by that same President is what's bizarre and ridiculous

Now you are just making things up. Congress did not approve Biden's threat to Poroshenko and we just saw sworn testimony that the Obama administration was worried about how the Hunter Biden scandal would play out in the 2016 elections. Congress was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, but Biden was only concerned with firing the prosecutor who was investigation the corrupt company that was paying Hunter Biden outrageous amounts of money in the hope they were buying the protection of the Obama administration.

We have no idea what the founders might have thought about executive privilege but the courts have held it is sometimes necessary and if the Democrats thought this was not such a case, the proper course was to take the issue to the courts. By not doing so and adding the bizarre charge of obstruction of Congress, the Democrats not only assaulted the Constitution's separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branch but also usurped the power of the judiciary.

**gasp**...you're calling me out for making stuff up?!!!!
At least you're now starting to make cogent arguments.
The investigation into Burisma was focusing on a period before Biden joined the company and had been suspended for months prior to Biden's actions.
Shokin's ousting was also supported by many members of the international community and Congress.and the pressure on Ukraine had been building for months before Biden took his action.
Hunter most likely got the job because of who his dad was...sure...and that sort of thing goes on all the time and it sucks...but it doesn't make it corrupt or illegal - it allows a company to look more connected than they might be.

There is no evidence to support anything you said. All we know for sure is that the Obama administration was very worried about the Hunter Biden scandal and sent Biden to Ukraine to threaten to cut off US if the President of Ukraine didn't immediately fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burima. This is certainly worth investigating. The fact that Democrats have gone to such elaborate lengths to try to stop the investigation only strengthens the case for pursuing it.

 

[Zorro!]

Actually the Senate has very elaborate impeachment rules that cover the receiving of charges from the managers and it takes 67 votes to approve a rule change.

I think that those rules only apply if the impeachment trial is conducted. IF the Majority Leader holds a vote to dismiss the charges (due to lack of evidence) passed by the House, all he needs is a majority. The Senate rules are not in effect until the House sends the articles over, but the Constitution says that the Senate can take action once the impeachment is passed. This gives McConnell a window of time to simply dismiss the impeachment due to lack of evidence if the House delays sending it to the Senate...

The 1998 Senate Impeachment Rules, that passed 100-0 allow for dismissal on a majority vote.

I don't think the House can be compelled to file charges, and Trump remains unimpeached until charges are filed. Whatever Pelosi thinks she is accomplishing, it looks cheap and petulant. Clearly they are lying about the fierce sense of urgency which is all that would justify an election year impeachment rather than leaving it to the voters.

If a SCOTUS seat opens, I think they will immediately file the charges to obstruct the nomination process, if they don't just file them in January when they return.

 

[Zorro!]

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

But...the Republican had their witnesses.
It didn't go well for them as I recall.

They didn't get the witnesses they wanted and weren't allowed to ask the questions they wanted to. This was a Democratic political stunt, not a serious impeachment. From the beginning it was clear the President would not be convicted by the Senate. It was just another platform from which the Democrats could scream at the President.

Consider the bizarre "charges". Asking another country to cooperate with an investigation was called an abuse of power, but countries frequently do that, and citing executive privilege to deny Congress what they asked for was called obstruction of Congress; if that is an impeachable offense, every president could be impeached. Clearly, there are only two kinds of Democrats in Congress,the scammers and those they scammed.

Denying another country aid that has been approved by Congress to persuade them to investigate a political rival is not frequently done...can you cite another example?

Where does the Constitution give the President Executive Privilege to impede an investigation into him?
The whole idea of impeachment is as a final curb on the President should he go rogue.
How can that be effective if the person for which the impeachment clause was intended can set the rules?

Trump asked Zelensky to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the 2016 election, and certainly Joe Biden's December 2015 trip to Ukraine to threaten the President of Ukraine with a cutoff of US aid unless he helped cover up the Hunter Biden scandal before the 2016 elections was a part of it. Your claim that Biden should get immunity for his actions because he hopes to be running against Trump is bizarre and ridiculous.

Executive privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but the courts have recognized it is sometimes necessary, however, it has always before been treated as a civil matter and never before as a criminal matter. If the Democrats believed the President had improperly cited executive privilege, the proper course of action is to take it to the courts to decide, but to insist Congress can demand anything it wants from the executive branch is an assault of the Constitution's separation of powers.

Biden's threat to Ukraine was a bipartisan Congress-approved position to remove a prosecutor that was internationally acknowledged as corrupt.
There was no scandal.

Executive privilege isn't mentioned but to think that the Framers would approve the tool they intended as the final mechanism to rein in an out of control or dangerous President could be nullified by that same President is what's bizarre and ridiculous

Biden took credit as the trigger when blabbing from his snide arrogant mouth, and it sure didn't help his case that his son was involved rather conveniently. Where'd the money go that was being paid by Burisma ?? Strip clubs and bars ??

His wife, at the time, said his family never saw it, all those $millions went to hookers and blow.

 

[Dick Foster]

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.

The house alone does not constitute a brach of government. That requires the entire congress including the senate. The house is half a brach and today it's composed of a majority of half wits. The half wit part will be remedied in the upcoming election.

 

[TheShockJock]

 

[task0778]

1. Opinions differ about whether or not the Senate can do anything about the Impeachment without the Articles, even though everyone knows what they are. The question is political, like everything else about this case. Will the Senate Repubs come out winners or losers if they dismiss the charges on a majority vote if the House does not send over the Articles? Assuming that is legally possible in the 1st place.

My personal opinion is that they have nothing to lose by going about the people's business and loudly advertising that fact while the dasdardly House Dems play politics. I think by doing what they're doing in the House, the Dems are making this thing look more and more like political gamesmanship and less and less about justice and democracy, which is why they had to hurry up the process in the 1st place. Trump was portrayed as this great threat to our elections, so we gotta impeach his ass ASAP. Except now we don't, and it ain't like they have any leverage to make the Senate GOP allow the witnesses the Dems want to call. And no matter what, Trump is not going to be removed from office, and anyone who thinks that might happen is delusional.

2. I don't think Pelosi is stupid, but she's being pulled in different directions by the opposing factions in her own party. The Far Left wants Trump's blood and the Moderattes want to get this over with. The longer this goes on the more likely it is that those vulnerable Dems in contested states and districts are gonna get voted out of office. The last I heard, the polls have flipped on this issue, and if it worsens then I doubt Pelosi will sit on those Articles for long. Cuz she does NOT want to lose her Speakership; as the Speaker she is relevant, but as one of the Minority she isn't.

3. As for Biden, it's hard to claim that he isn't guilty of the same thing the Dems are impeaching Trump for. Which doesn't exonerate Trump but it does show the hypocrisy of the Dems.

4. I will say this, it is possible and even likely that Trump subtly tried to influence the Ukraine to investigate Buresma and Hunter Biden for corruption. The problem is that no one can actually prove it. 15 guys can testify that they think he did it, but none of them actually heard him say so. The phone call transcript could be interpreted as an attempt at bribery, but to do so is just that an interpretation. And you should not impeach a president on an interpretation.

5. And finally, the 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress brought because Trump wouldn't allow some of his senior officials to testify or provide requested documents is laughable. Every president has the option of using "Executive Privilege", Obama used it quite often.

 

[Zorro!]

1. Opinions differ about whether or not the Senate can do anything about the Impeachment without the Articles, even though everyone knows what they are. The question is political, like everything else about this case. Will the Senate Repubs come out winners or losers if they dismiss the charges on a majority vote if the House does not send over the Articles? Assuming that is legally possible in the 1st place.

My personal opinion is that they have nothing to lose by going about the people's business and loudly advertising that fact while the dasdardly House Dems play politics. I think by doing what they're doing in the House, the Dems are making this thing look more and more like political gamesmanship and less and less about justice and democracy, which is why they had to hurry up the process in the 1st place...

It has always been a massive farce. Trump's only "crime" was winning an election they wanted him to lose.

... 2. I don't think Pelosi is stupid...

Her stupidity cost them their first majority, rather than focusing on the Needs of The American People, she pushed through Obamacare in the face of national disapproval. She's the only Speaker to ever lose power and then regain it, and she did the same damn thing again.

... 3. As for Biden, it's hard to claim that he isn't guilty of the same thing the Dems are impeaching Trump for. Which doesn't exonerate Trump but it does show the hypocrisy of the Dems...

It's a massive stretch that requires mind-reading by folks that hate him to claim Trump was involved in a bribery scheme, there is a simple understandable case, on the face of the facts, that the Bidens were involved in multiple bribery schemes.

... 4. I will say this, it is possible and even likely that Trump subtly tried to influence the Ukraine to investigate Buresma and Hunter Biden for corruption. The problem is that no one can actually prove it. 15 guys can testify that they think he did it, but none of them actually heard him say so. The phone call transcript could be interpreted as an attempt at bribery, but to do so is just that an interpretation. And you should not impeach a president on an interpretation...

He openly suggested they do so, which I fully agree with, it looks stinky as hell. The Biden's enjoy no immunity from investigation simply because Pops is running in the primaries, Trump has certainly been fully investigated, as a candidate and as a President.

... 5. And finally, the 2nd charge of Obstruction of Congress brought because Trump wouldn't allow some of his senior officials to testify or provide requested documents is laughable. Every president has the option of using "Executive Privilege", Obama used it quite often.

Yup. And now the House is obstructing the Senate from holding the trial.

 

[task0778]

"And now the House is obstructing the Senate from holding the trial."

Yeah, they are. I just read this, over at foxNews.com:

Critically, there is no mention of procedure in the Constitution, the House Impeaches and the Senate holds a trial. So where does this supposed transmittal requirement come from? The answer is the Senate’s own rules. Specifically, its rules governing impeachment procedure.
The first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial.

So can Pelosi delay an impeachment trial? Yes, as long as the Senate doesn’t change its current rules. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping it from changing this rule, and the Senate should change the rule to prevent this sort of gamesmanship.
.
.
So the Senate should change its impeachment rules as follows: once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

Having set this boulder rolling, House Democrats should not be allowed now to hold it up. They started this process. It’s up to the Senate to finish it on its terms alone. Not Pelosi’s.

GianCarlo Canaparo: Pelosi powerless to delay Trump impeachment trial if Senate does THIS

It's hard to see how any judge can argue with the Senate's right to make it's own procedural rules. If I'm McConnell I go to my caucus and ask they'd be willing to go this route. I'd give them (the Dems) the option of accepting the same Senate rules that were used in the Clinton trial 20 years ago, which passed 100-0 BTW. Those rules do allow the Senate to hear the opening statements, answer questions from the Senators, and then vote on dismissal of the charges. If the vote doesn't pass, the trial continues, with whatever the rules end up being.

 

[bodecea]

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.

They can try....but that would be funny beyond belief that Moscow Mitch be that desperate.

 

[Zorro!]

"And now the House is obstructing the Senate from holding the trial."

Yeah, they are. I just read this, over at foxNews.com:

Critically, there is no mention of procedure in the Constitution, the House Impeaches and the Senate holds a trial. So where does this supposed transmittal requirement come from? The answer is the Senate’s own rules. Specifically, its rules governing impeachment procedure.
The first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial.

So can Pelosi delay an impeachment trial? Yes, as long as the Senate doesn’t change its current rules. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping it from changing this rule, and the Senate should change the rule to prevent this sort of gamesmanship.
.
.
So the Senate should change its impeachment rules as follows: once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

Having set this boulder rolling, House Democrats should not be allowed now to hold it up. They started this process. It’s up to the Senate to finish it on its terms alone. Not Pelosi’s.

GianCarlo Canaparo: Pelosi powerless to delay Trump impeachment trial if Senate does THIS

It's hard to see how any judge can argue with the Senate's right to make it's own procedural rules. If I'm McConnell I go to my caucus and ask they'd be willing to go this route. I'd give them (the Dems) the option of accepting the same Senate rules that were used in the Clinton trial 20 years ago, which passed 100-0 BTW. Those rules do allow the Senate to hear the opening statements, answer questions from the Senators, and then vote on dismissal of the charges. If the vote doesn't pass, the trial continues, with whatever the rules end up being.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but, the House has the power to impeach. They clearly have cold feet about moving forward, which they may quickly clear up in January. For now, patience while they figure out if they really want to go through with this, they have a transparently weak, sure loser of a case.