Not if your cowardly leaders (and you know cowards wing one yourself) donāt send it to the Senate fuckwad. Process NOT complete no matter how much you cry dipshit.
LOLOL
Yup, still impeached.
No, not impeached until the process is complete you uneducated dumbfuck. Next time you go to a restaurant you are to inform the waiter to serve you raw chicken. You are to eat it. It doesnāt matter of the process of cooking has been completed. WE say itās done. So do it coward. Oh thatās right, you wonāt even stand behind your owner shit. Poor baby. No matter how much he cries he get slapped slapped around by every poster here.
LOLOL
Well there's you saying that absent of proof .... and then there's the House rules confirming you're a ******* imbecile.
Quote
Impeach means to charge someone with doing something wrong, specifically a high government official, such as the U.S. president, a senator, or a federal judge.
Trump has been charged and that is all at this point.
The Senate is the one to decide whether or not the President is guilty of what he has been charged with.
Apparantly lots of Democrats seem to think that just because he has been charged that means he is guilty.
This is America...where one is innocent until he has been proven guilty. Only the Senate has the power to say he is guilty.
The situation of Nancy not delivering the charges to the senate has never occurred before...thus no precedent for that and there is nothing in the constitution that supports it.
I said way back when the democrats started this that they were opening a can of worms...aka venturing into un-charted waters...which could lead to something very ominous.
It might be possible to make a criminal case against Nancy for 'obstruction' --aka --not allowing or interfering with The U.S. senate's obligation according to the constitution to conduct a trial.
Any lawyers on here who care to comment on this?
6 Reasons Pelosi's Impeachment Article Obstruction Is A Total Disaster
Nancy doesn't have the power to obstruct the Senate. They could dismiss this, ignore it, whatever they like.
No Articles of Impeachment or a Trial Are Required For The Senate to Acquit President Trump.
The United States Supreme Court ā in a 9-0 holding ā unequivocally ruled that no trial is required for the Senate to acquit, or convict, anyone impeached by the House of Representatives. Even liberal Justices Stevens and Souter concurred in the ironclad judgment. The
case is Judge Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
The Supreme Court ruled in the Judge Nixon
case that how the Senate goes about acquitting or convicting any impeached person is non-justiciable, in that the Senateās power is plenary and the Supreme Court may not even review it.
This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately ā without a trial ā the Supreme Court has no authority,
whatsoever, to review the Senateās acquittal, and there isnāt a damn thing the House can do about it.
The Nixon court held that ā
the word āsoleā indicates that this authority is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.ā
The Senate has no authority to determine what conduct is impeachable or what process the House uses to impeach. On the other hand, the House has no authority over the Senateās sole power to acquit, or convict, or the process invoked to either end.
Therefore, no trial is necessary for the Senate to acquit immediately. This saga could be over right now.
WALTER NIXONāS IMPEACHMENT CONVICTION
Walter Nixon was the Chief Judge of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. He was convicted of making false statements before a grand jury and sentenced to prison.
The investigation stemmed from reports that Nixon accepted a gratuity from a Mississippi businessman in exchange for asking a local district attorney to halt the prosecution of the businessmanās son. Because Nixon refused to resign from his office as a United States District Judge, he continued to collect his judicial salary while serving out his prison sentence.
The House of Representatives adopted three articles of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Senate voted to use Senate Impeachment Rule XI, allowing the presiding officer to appoint a committee of Senators to āreceive evidence and take testimony.ā The committee did its work then presented the full Senate with a transcript of the proceeding and a report on the facts.
The Senate voted by more than a two-thirds majority to convict Nixon. The presiding officer then entered judgment removing Nixon from his office as United States District Judge. Nixon thereafter commenced suit, arguing that Senate Rule XI violates the constitutional grant of authority to the Senate to ātryā all impeachments because it prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings.
Nixon sought a declaratory judgment that his impeachment conviction was void and that his judicial salary and privileges should be reinstated. The District Court held that his claim was non-justiciable, 744 F. Supp. 9 (D.C. 1990), and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed. 290 U. S. App. D.C. 420 (1991). The Supreme Court accepted the case, and then ruled that they had no power to review the Senateās impeachment process. They affirmed that the case was non-justiciable. The Court focused its attention on the word āsoleā:
āPetitioner devotes only two pages in his brief to negating the significance of the word āsoleā in the first sentence of Clause 6. As noted above, that sentence provides that āthe Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.ā We think that the word āsoleā is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word āsoleā appears only one other time in the Constitutionāwith respect to the House of Representativesā āsole Power of Impeachment.ā Art. I, Ā§2, cl. 5. The common sense meaning of the word āsoleā is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted.ā
The Courtās holding is clear: the Senate
alone determines acquittal or conviction. The Senate committee prepared a report, submitted the report to the Senate, and the Senate voted to convict. Nixon demanded a full trial before the entire Senate. He did not get one. He lost and was removed. The Supreme Court held that it did not have the power to review the Senateās conduct. As to the meaning of the word ātryā in the impeachment clause, the courtās majority opinion states:
āThe conclusion that the use of the word ātryā in the first sentence of the Impeachment Trial Clause lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review of the Senateās actions is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments: the members must be under oath, a two thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings by the use of the word ātryā in the first sentence.ā
The Courtās use of the word āproceedingsā is telling in the extreme. Any action by the Senate is a
proceeding, but not every proceeding is a
trial. If the Senate proceeds with a motion to dismiss, or a motion to acquit the President, no trial is required.
The Nixon Court continued by making it absolutely clear that an impeachment trial is not required, holding that the Senate is not limited in any way by the word ātryā in convicting or acquitting impeached persons:
āIn the case before us, there is no separate provision of the Constitution which could be defeated by allowing the Senate final authority to determine the meaning of the word ātryā in the Impeachment Trial Clause. We conclude that the word ātryā in the Impeachment Clause does not provide an identifiable textual limit on the authority which is committed to the Senate. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.ā
Nothing in the Constitution, or in the ruling by the Supreme Court in Nixon, requires the Senate to ātryā anyone after the House impeaches. The Senate can simply acquit the President without trying him, because the Senate alone has the power to convict or acquit. The Supreme Court held that there is no identifiable textual limit on that authority. Justice Whiteās concurring
opinion worried that such broad authority in the Senate could be abused, but six of the nine justices joined the majority opinion. All nine approved judgment. And the Senateās plenary authority is controlling law.
If there is a tie on a motion to acquit or dismiss, the Constitution gives Vice President Pence the tie-breaking vote. If the Democrat Senators running for President have no conflict of interest, neither does Pence. Regardless, the Constitution
directly gives Pence the tie-breaking vote, so the GOP can lose three votes, but the Dems would need four GOP defectors to overrule the Chair.
Not only did the Supreme Court reject the assertion that it could review the Senateās conduct in acquitting or convicting any person impeached by the House, the Court held that it couldnāt even identify a limit upon the Senateās authority to acquit or convict.
The Court also held that no separate provision of the Constitution is defeated by such a plenary construction of the Senateās authority. Therefore, not even the sole power of the House to impeach is defeated by the Senateās sole power to acquit or convict.
Note that current House Representative Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge, was impeached and removed from the bench. He also argued in federal court that the Senate owed him a trial before the full Senate, after he too was convicted by a Senate committee report. The D.C. District Court initially threw out Hastingsā impeachment conviction in the Senate, but after the Nixon ruling, that decision in favor of Hastings was vacated. The district court then
dismissed Hastingsā suit as non-justiciable according to Nixon. Hastings remains impeached and removed from the bench.
