Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[Circe]

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

True...and impeachment is not a criminal process. It's purely for removing from office. There may be a political "right" to a speedy trial, of course.

 

[kyzr]

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?

After reading all the posts I can postulate the following:
1. The House "impeachment" is like an indictment, an "accusation" with "evidence", but without a trial there is no constitutional significance. Its a nothingburger, like being called a name by the House, or held in contempt by the House, so what? Its constitutionally meaningless without a trial. It would just be a political stunt.

2. If/when she sends the articles to the senate for a trial, then we're back in constitutionality, unless she waits tooooooo long to send them. Then the senate should stuff Nancy by rejecting them, or dismissing them, or making her eat them.

 

[Faun]

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.

What came of that was the determination that members of Congress are not civil officers and the Constitution limits impeachment to only the president, vice-president and civil officers. Senators cannot be impeached.

"Civil Officer" Defined

CIVIL OFFICER
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.​

The first part of that statement is correct:

"that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The rest is opinion.

In 1787 President John Adams and the majority of the House believed that a Senator was subject to impeachment. The fact that the House impeached Senator Blount proves it. He was in fact impeached.

The finding that a Senator is not a civil officer was the opinion of the Senate...clearly an extremely biased opinion. Besides the Senate did not invalidate the impeachment, they simply stated that they did not have the authority to try him - not exactly the same thing.

The question has never been brought to the courts for determination.

The House also recognizes Congressional members are not civil officers, subject to impeachment...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

The Use of Impeachment
Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers.​

That may be the commonly accepted OPINION, but it's never been challenged in court.

Just read the above statement:

"Blount’s impeachment trial"

How could there have been an impeachment trial if Blount was never impeached?

"established the principle"

A principal that has never been challeged.

For example:

Suppose that in 1787 the Senate has NOT removed Blount from office AND had voted not to try him.

Would the House of representatives have done nothing? Just accepted it?

I doubt it. They would have gone to the courts to determine if the Senate had a responsibility to try him.

The fact that the House decided not to make a 'big deal' of it because Blunt was removed anyway, did not invalidate the impeachment. Technically the House should have gone to the courts to determine the Senate's responsibility.

I didn't say Blount wasn't impeached. He was. And then he was acquitted in trial on the grounds that Congressional members are not civil officers subject to impeachment.

Now you're right in the sense the Supreme Court has never ruled on this, that's because both the House and the Senate have accepted that decision as precedent. Even if it were to ever be tested and the Supreme Court had to get involved, I'm confident they wouldn't change that. a) over 200 years of precedence; b) the Constitution states both chambers set their rules; and c) there's already a remedy in both houses to expel members without impeachment.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

They removed him according to Senate rules. Read the transcript of the congressional record.

Blount did not challenge the accusations - which were originally made by president Adams.

Blount did object to the impeachment trial by saying that since he was not longer a Senator he could not be impeached, but that argument was rejected (Actually, that argument made sense to me)

Blount argued Senators are not civil officers, subject to impeachment, and the Senate agreed and acquitted him for that reason.

Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 70 - Impeachment and Trial of William Blount

yes, I've stated that several times.

What I'm saying is that the Senate is not an impartial body and should not be allowed to determine if Senators can be impeached. The courts should decide.

That's like me determining that old white men should not be subject to arrest. I think that some people may find it to be a non-impartial determination.

 

[Circe]

If the articles are not sent to the Senate by the time the next Senate is seated, the next House Speaker assumes responsibility for sending them to the Senate. Maybe that's Pelosi still or maybe it's not.

That's the question we are discussing, however: Pelosi is not sending them to the Senate. However "responsible" she is to do this, if she's not doing it, kabloom, lots of sound and fury.

 

[Circe]

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.

Yeah, this is probably a good analysis of what's going on. So --- probably around the middle of January.

 

[Circe]

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ?

Protectionist, everyone realizes that!

And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

​

This is not all that obvious. I'd wait and see.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

What came of that was the determination that members of Congress are not civil officers and the Constitution limits impeachment to only the president, vice-president and civil officers. Senators cannot be impeached.

"Civil Officer" Defined

CIVIL OFFICER
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.​

The first part of that statement is correct:

"that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The rest is opinion.

In 1787 President John Adams and the majority of the House believed that a Senator was subject to impeachment. The fact that the House impeached Senator Blount proves it. He was in fact impeached.

The finding that a Senator is not a civil officer was the opinion of the Senate...clearly an extremely biased opinion. Besides the Senate did not invalidate the impeachment, they simply stated that they did not have the authority to try him - not exactly the same thing.

The question has never been brought to the courts for determination.

The House also recognizes Congressional members are not civil officers, subject to impeachment...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

The Use of Impeachment
Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers.​

That may be the commonly accepted OPINION, but it's never been challenged in court.

Just read the above statement:

"Blount’s impeachment trial"

How could there have been an impeachment trial if Blount was never impeached?

"established the principle"

A principal that has never been challeged.

For example:

Suppose that in 1787 the Senate has NOT removed Blount from office AND had voted not to try him.

Would the House of representatives have done nothing? Just accepted it?

I doubt it. They would have gone to the courts to determine if the Senate had a responsibility to try him.

The fact that the House decided not to make a 'big deal' of it because Blunt was removed anyway, did not invalidate the impeachment. Technically the House should have gone to the courts to determine the Senate's responsibility.

I didn't say Blount wasn't impeached. He was. And then he was acquitted in trial on the grounds that Congressional members are not civil officers subject to impeachment.

Now you're right in the sense the Supreme Court has never ruled on this, that's because both the House and the Senate have accepted that decision as precedent. Even if it were to ever be tested and the Supreme Court had to get involved, I'm confident they wouldn't change that. a) over 200 years of precedence; b) the Constitution states both chambers set their rules; and c) there's already a remedy in both houses to expel members without impeachment.

This gets back to the original discussion of this thread:

What exactly defines "Impeachment"

I say that it is an action by the House and only the House.

Therefore Senator Blount AND President Trump have BOTH been impeached.

What the Senate does is immaterial to a person being Impeached.

The Senate determined the Blount's impeachment could not be tried by the Senate...that does not mean that he was not impeached.

If the Senate were to 'Dismiss' charges against President Trump like they did with Blount, he like Blount would still have been impeached.

Saying that Blount was not impeached or that Trump is not currently impeached is saying that just because charges have been dimissed means that a person was not indicted.

An impeachment is an indictment whether or not the Senate dismisses it.

 

[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.

Yeah, this is probably a good analysis of what's going on. So --- probably around the middle of January.

Except she has nothing to do with the senate. So, she’s just holding the country hostage! BTW, she ain’t ever giving the articles to the senate!

 

[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.

1. Acquitted is acquitted is acquitted is acquitted. When Nancy send the Articles to the Senate, they will be dismissed without a circus.
2. No Republican will vote against Mitch, unless they want to find a new job
3. Justice Roberts can be overruled by a simple majority of senators, see #2
4. See #1, please note that no "hearsay evidence" is allowed in the senate
5. We'll see who wins in November after Barr and Durham expose the worst scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama admin's illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
6. Nancy gave the GOP the House when 31 dems are in Trump districts, and their shitty candidates will give Trump the presidency

Peloser will never give over the articles

 

[Circe]

[

1. Acquitted is acquitted is acquitted is acquitted. When Nancy send the Articles to the Senate, they will be dismissed without a circus.
2. No Republican will vote against Mitch, unless they want to find a new job
3. Justice Roberts can be overruled by a simple majority of senators, see #2
4. See #1, please note that no "hearsay evidence" is allowed in the senate
5. We'll see who wins in November after Barr and Durham expose the worst scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama admin's illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
6. Nancy gave the GOP the House when 31 dems are in Trump districts, and their shitty candidates will give Trump the presidency

1. Wouldn't it be fun if Pelosi DIDN'T send the articles and the Senate simply dismisses them for that reason? I can hope.
2. I wait till the votes are counted. Remember all those Dems voting "present." Like Obama used to do, the cowards.
3. Don't know the relevance.
4. If they don't allow hearsay evidence with this bowl of spaghetti of a "case," they don't have any evidence!
5. Yeah, this book I'm reading on the situation by Gregg Jarrett wants a trial of the Dems involved (especially the Democratic Party campaign people, who paid for it! But I don't think that will happen. These scandals cooked up to bring someone down: like the Victoria Plame thing, as soon as it fails, it's forgotten.
6. You may be right about the House. We can hope. They didn't do themselves any favors with all this.

 

[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 ?

No. She'll send the Article to the Senate and let the Republican Senators show the American people that they are a bunch of spineless weenies.

Americans hate spineless weenies!

I wouldn't bet on that if I were you. Why would Pelosi send it to the Senate, where the Republicans have all the advantage, and will eradicate all the optic gains the Democrats got in the House ?

You won't be getting a job as my business manager.

 

[protectionist]

Right now, both McConnell and Graham are subject to removal from the Senate in accordance with Senate rules.

If only the rest of the Republican Senators were not spineless weenies!

What you really mean is...if only the Republican Senators were not Republicans. But they are.

 

[jc456]

[

1. Acquitted is acquitted is acquitted is acquitted. When Nancy send the Articles to the Senate, they will be dismissed without a circus.
2. No Republican will vote against Mitch, unless they want to find a new job
3. Justice Roberts can be overruled by a simple majority of senators, see #2
4. See #1, please note that no "hearsay evidence" is allowed in the senate
5. We'll see who wins in November after Barr and Durham expose the worst scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama admin's illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
6. Nancy gave the GOP the House when 31 dems are in Trump districts, and their shitty candidates will give Trump the presidency

1. Wouldn't it be fun if Pelosi DIDN'T send the articles and the Senate simply dismisses them for that reason? I can hope.
2. I wait till the votes are counted. Remember all those Dems voting "present." Like Obama used to do, the cowards.
3. Don't know the relevance.
4. If they don't allow hearsay evidence with this bowl of spaghetti of a "case," they don't have any evidence!
5. Yeah, this book I'm reading on the situation by Gregg Jarrett wants a trial of the Dems involved (especially the Democratic Party campaign people, who paid for it! But I don't think that will happen. These scandals cooked up to bring someone down: like the Victoria Plame thing, as soon as it fails, it's forgotten.
6. You may be right about the House. We can hope. They didn't do themselves any favors with all this.

Yeah, your fifth bullet is why those articles aren’t going anywhere! Know that

 

[jc456]

Right now, both McConnell and Graham are subject to removal from the Senate in accordance with Senate rules.

If only the rest of the Republican Senators were not spineless weenies!

What you really mean is...if only the Republican Senators were not Republicans. But they are.

What he is saying is only the demofks don’t need to be impartial

 

[BS Filter]

Nope. As long as Nazi Pelousy hides her farce he has not been impeached.

it's a done deal. accept it.

Yep, she is batshit crazy..................and has yet to impeach Trump.

follow the bouncing ball m'k? ...

articles of impeachment are the charges.

trump has been charged.

the articles haven't gone to the courthouse aka the senate yet .

that doesn't mean donny hasn't been charged.

see how easy that was?

good.

now accept it, cause it's fini.

The Constitutional Expert on impeachment the Dimwingers in the House brought in to testify and educate them on impeachment says you are full of shit.

Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles
Jonathan Turley refutes Dem lawyer, says Trump was impeached despite withheld articles

I testified against Trump’s impeachment. But let’s not pretend it didn’t happen.
Constitutional reality doesn’t rest on the House sending the articles over to the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...chment-lets-not-pretend-that-it-didnt-happen/

I believe the Democrat lawyer.

 

[Nostra]

Right now, both McConnell and Graham are subject to removal from the Senate in accordance with Senate rules.

If only the rest of the Republican Senators were not spineless weenies!

What for?

 

[Nostra]

Update please............has Nazi Pelousy turned the articles of impeachment over to the Senate yet, and actually finished the House's part of impeachment, or is Trump still not impeached?

Surely she isn't still hiding her impeachment farce, right?

 

[protectionist]

Right now, both McConnell and Graham are subject to removal from the Senate in accordance with Senate rules.

If only the rest of the Republican Senators were not spineless weenies!

What you really mean is...if only the Republican Senators were not Republicans. But they are.

What he is saying is only the demofks don’t need to be impartial

Could they actually be impartial, if they tried, as hard as hard as they could ? Probably not. They're past the point of no return.

 

[kyzr]

[

1. Acquitted is acquitted is acquitted is acquitted. When Nancy send the Articles to the Senate, they will be dismissed without a circus.
2. No Republican will vote against Mitch, unless they want to find a new job
3. Justice Roberts can be overruled by a simple majority of senators, see #2
4. See #1, please note that no "hearsay evidence" is allowed in the senate
5. We'll see who wins in November after Barr and Durham expose the worst scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama admin's illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
6. Nancy gave the GOP the House when 31 dems are in Trump districts, and their shitty candidates will give Trump the presidency

1. Wouldn't it be fun if Pelosi DIDN'T send the articles and the Senate simply dismisses them for that reason? I can hope.
2. I wait till the votes are counted. Remember all those Dems voting "present." Like Obama used to do, the cowards.
3. Don't know the relevance.
4. If they don't allow hearsay evidence with this bowl of spaghetti of a "case," they don't have any evidence!
5. Yeah, this book I'm reading on the situation by Gregg Jarrett wants a trial of the Dems involved (especially the Democratic Party campaign people, who paid for it! But I don't think that will happen. These scandals cooked up to bring someone down: like the Victoria Plame thing, as soon as it fails, it's forgotten.
6. You may be right about the House. We can hope. They didn't do themselves any favors with all this.

3. The relevance is that Roberts' rulings can be overturned by a majority vote of the senators, like if Mitch is unhappy with a ruling.
5. I read Gregg Jarrett's "Witch Hunt" it took a week, that is a thick book. It names all the players in the Operation Crossfire Hurricane coup plot. I hope Durham nails all the conspirators.