Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[jc456]

Nothing. Now let's talk about just about every other poster in this thread .

The topic is the title, and the heart of the matter is (as I have repeated), the politics of sending to the Senate or not.

As there no intention of impeachment, but this is just an assinine means of tarnishing Trump, it's not necessary to talk about the transcript, or anything having to do with impeachment.

The Crux of all this is WHO gains from the blabbering going to the Senate, and who loses ?

Answer: Democrats lose, Republicans gain. This is why it will likely go nowhere, and a whole new impeachment masquerade will ensue, with new charges being concocted.

This will continue right up to the election. The Democrats have no issues to run on, so they rely on tarnishing Trump.

the intention passed the house. donny has been impeached & pelosi will not hang onto them thar articles indefinitely. learn to accept it b4 y'all float down denial river for everrrrrrr.....

Not impeached until the articles are handed to the senate, it’s a process dumb ass. You are an uniformed fk

You don't make the rules. The framers of the Constitution made the rules.

Trump has been impeached.

Not until presented to the Senate for trial.

You just make things up off the top of your head, don't you?

Nope. Trump has been impeached.
You can keep lying to yourself if it makes you happy, but the fact is: Trump has been impeached...period...

Nope, not until the articles are handed to the senate. That’s the process, doesn’t matter your thoughts

 

[protectionist]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

 

[protectionist]

She can do that if she wants, though I think that's a bad idea. But she could and then continue to hold on to them should Democrats win the House; or send them to the Senate after the election should Republicans win the House.

At least you are on topic, and addressing the question of the thread's title.

 

[Hum Dinger]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

 

[Faun]

From the Constitution: “The Senate shall try ALL IMPEACHMENTS”.

If the Senate doesn’t have it to try, no impeachment, Simpleton.

You lose again.

LOLOL

Poor, demented thing... the Trial has not yet begun, but the articles of impeachment were still adopted. That doesn't change just because the Senate has not yet received them..

And dumbfuck, what happens when the House adopts articles of impeachment ... ?

"the respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment." ~ House Rules

You're the gift that keeps on givin', Spunky. I can do this as long as I want, I'm off this week.

 

[Nostra]

From the Constitution: “The Senate shall try ALL IMPEACHMENTS”.

If the Senate doesn’t have it to try, no impeachment, Simpleton.

You lose again.

LOLOL

Poor, demented thing... the Trial has not yet begun, but the articles of impeachment were still adopted. That doesn't change just because the Senate has not yet received them..

And dumbfuck, what happens when the House adopts articles of impeachment ... ?

"the respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment." ~ House Rules

You're the gift that keeps on givin', Spunky. I can do this as long as I want, I'm off this week.

Nope. Not yet.

You lose again,

 

[Faun]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

 

[Faun]

From the Constitution: “The Senate shall try ALL IMPEACHMENTS”.

If the Senate doesn’t have it to try, no impeachment, Simpleton.

You lose again.

LOLOL

Poor, demented thing... the Trial has not yet begun, but the articles of impeachment were still adopted. That doesn't change just because the Senate has not yet received them..

And dumbfuck, what happens when the House adopts articles of impeachment ... ?

"the respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment." ~ House Rules

You're the gift that keeps on givin', Spunky. I can do this as long as I want, I'm off this week.

Nope. Not yet.

You lose again,

LOLOL

Says you citing yourself.

 

[jc456]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

She won’t ever

 

[jc456]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Dude, you should reread your post

 

[Hum Dinger]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

 

[Faun]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

 

[Hum Dinger]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Dude, you should reread your post

Dude, you should read the Congressional record on the Impeachment of Senator Blount.

 

[protectionist]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

So you think she will send them to the Senate, and walk headfirst into a Republican optics victory ?

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ? And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

 

[jc456]

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Dude, you should reread your post

Dude, you should read the Congressional record on the Impeachment of Senator Blount.

Ok, but you should really reread your post

 

[protectionist]

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Dude, you should reread your post

Dude, you should read the Congressional record on the Impeachment of Senator Blount.

What relevance does it have to the current scenario ?

 

[Hum Dinger]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

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

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

 

[Faun]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

So you think she will send them to the Senate, walk headfirst into a Republican optics victory ?

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ? And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

I already said I expect she will send them to the Senate. Are you hard of reading?

 

[protectionist]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

So you think she will send them to the Senate, walk headfirst into a Republican optics victory ?

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ? And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

I already said I expect she will send them to the Senate. Are you hard of reading?

You either

1. don't have the foggiest idea of what is going on here

2. or you must think Pelosi is awfully stupid.

 

[jc456]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

Peloser will never hand the articles over, and because of that every other bullet is done