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

[percysunshine]

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.

Pfft....Pelosi faked an orgasm and everyone knows it.

 

[beagle9]

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

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.

Those millions went somewhere else.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but, the House has the power to impeach.

OK, this is how the Senate can dismiss this thing without an actual trial or change its rules with a simple majority:

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case?

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.

The current rules governing Senate practice and procedure do not pose an insurmountable problem for this maneuver. Senate leadership can seek to have the rules “reinterpreted” at any time by the device of seeking a ruling of the chair on the question, and avoiding a formal revision of the rule that would require supermajority approval. The question presented in some form would be whether, under the relevant rules, the Senate is required to hold an impeachment “trial” fully consistent with current rules—or even any trial at all. A chair’s ruling in the affirmative would be subject to being overturned by a majority, not two-thirds, vote.

This is a replay of the argument and related procedure followed for the “nuclear option” that changed the threshold for “cloture” of judicial nomination debates from a two-thirds to a majority vote. When the Republican leadership floated the option in 2005, some made the case that because the Constitution conferring the Senate’s advice and consent authority does not subject that authority to any supermajority confirmation requirement, the Senate rules could not provide otherwise. Some might argue that the rules also cannot constitutionally bind the Senate to a trial of a House impeachment if, in the exercise of its “sole power” to try, it decides against one. In this way, the Senate rule may be “reinterpreted.”

The Senate has options for scuttling the impeachment process beyond a simple refusal to heed the House vote. The Constitution does not specify what constitutes a “trial,” and in a 1993 case involving a judicial impeachment, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Senate’s “sole power” to “try” means that it is not subject to any limitations on how it could conduct a proceeding. Senate leadership could engineer an early motion to dismiss and effectively moot the current rule’s call for the president or counsel to appear before the Senate. The rules in place provide at any rate only that “the Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses”: they do not require that any other than the president be called. Moreover, the Senate could adjourn at any time, terminating the proceedings and declining to take up the House articles. This is what happened in the trial of Andrew Johnson, in which the Senate voted on three articles and then adjourned without holding votes on the remaining eight.​

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Chamber of Commerce influence because businesses need labor and too many Americans think some jobs are beneath them (just listen to the liberals on this board)

 

[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.

Chamber of Commerce influence because businesses need labor and too many Americans think some jobs are beneath them (just listen to the liberals on this board)

Are the people in the Chamber of Commerce that short sighted that they cant see they can have a short term profit but a long term suicide?

Even if they are that stupid, Republicans should not be.

BTW, liberals are only about 20-25% of the population.

My son tried for TWO YEARS to find a job in high school and could not.

But every convenience store and landscaping company had plenty of illegal Mexican labor stuffed to the gills.

BTW, the problem is not that the CoC cant find Americans willing to do the job, they just dont want to pay a competitive wage to Americans and would rather CHEAT and go criminal using black market labor instead.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

So far, Mitch has made the mistake of allowing the House Dems to run the show and call the shots as he sits in defense. I hope now rather than wait for Nancy's next move, he thinks this through to all his options and plays it in a way to put Pelosi on the defense to limit her options! Maybe give her 30 days or call her Christmas Eve to tell her that if she doesn't file the Impeachment with the Senate within 24 hours, the Senate will void their case and proceed on their own. Whatever he can use of the laws to his advantage.

Wouldn't it be funny if Nancy had to use her Christmas Day to fly back to Washington to bust a nut getting a whole bunch of stuff together missing dinner with her family and friends?

The democrats have been sick, twisted, ruthless and cunning. Time to return the favor by being outrageous, devious, vicious and cut-throat.

 

[beagle9]

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.

Chamber of Commerce influence because businesses need labor and too many Americans think some jobs are beneath them (just listen to the liberals on this board)

Are the people in the Chamber of Commerce that short sighted that they cant see they can have a short term profit but a long term suicide?

Even if they are that stupid, Republicans should not be.

BTW, liberals are only about 20-25% of the population.

My son tried for TWO YEARS to find a job in high school and could not.

But every convenience store and landscaping company had plenty of illegal Mexican labor stuffed to the gills.

BTW, the problem is not that the CoC cant find Americans willing to do the job, they just dont want to pay a competitive wage to Americans and would rather CHEAT and go criminal using black market labor instead.

Well it's not really so much that they won't or wouldn't pay a competitive wage, but it's more about the labor pool that has been carefully created under the radar for them to use. So before the cheap labor pool was in the mix, the job market used what it had, paid competitive wages, respected American labor (because in alot of cases the laborers were family, friends of family, American's in an American culture, so on and so forth), but when the illegal labor pool became more and more strong, trained, skilled, and still so cheap that only a crazy person (it was figured), would continue to use top cost labor against those who could do the work for a mere fraction of the cost, the business sectors were all of a sudden cheap labor crack heads.

It all came down to the numbers, and the selling out of one's own countrymen for silver and gold in the end. "The BOTTOM LINE".

So the campaign by the crooked politicians all the way up to President's who were being ensnared, was to lie to the American people using propaganda to make it all work. I remember George W. Bush using the lie when he said "hey they're just doing the jobs American's don't want to do".

Well I say this then, how did we ever produce the fighting American's who fought in world wars one and two, if they had to have others to do the job for them ???? This cheap labor scam has ruined generations of our American youth, and has endangered the future security of this nation, it's political system, and it's people.