Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial
By: KYLE CHENEY, SARAH FERRIS and JOHN BRESNAHAN
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to commit Wednesday to delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about an unfair trial on removing President Donald Trump from office.
Senior Democratic aides said the House was “very unlikely” to take the steps necessary to send the articles to the Senate until at least early January, a delay of at least two weeks and perhaps longer.
“So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” Pelosi told reporters at a news conference just moments after the House charged Trump with abuse of power and obstructing congressional investigations. “That would’ve been our intention, but we’ll see what happens over there.”
Pelosi’s comments, which echo suggestions raised by other Democrats throughout the day, inject new uncertainty into the impeachment timetable and send the House and Senate lurching toward a potential institutional crisis.
Though the House adopted two articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of congressional investigations, it must pass a second resolution formally naming impeachment managers to present the case in the Senate. That second vehicle triggers the official transmission of articles to the Senate.
By delaying passage of that resolution, Pelosi and top Democrats retain control of the articles and hope to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to adopt trial procedures they consider bipartisan.
McConnell has boasted that he has closely coordinated the planning of the trial with the White House and has repeatedly predicted Trump would be acquitted. He’s also suggested Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to call new witnesses as they attempt to present their case.
The White House lashed out at the move. “House Democrats have run a fatally flawed process with fake facts, and now they want to deny the President his day in court with another procedural maneuver that proves anew they have no case,” said Eric Ueland, Trump’s top congressional liaison to Congress.
Pelosi’s remarks follow similar comments from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking lawmaker in the House, who said Democrats must discuss a last-ditch gambit to delay sending articles of impeachment to the Senate and prevent the Republican-controlled chamber from summarily discarding the case against Trump.
In recent weeks, some legal scholars have suggested Speaker Nancy Pelosi could consider refusing to transmit the articles of impeachment that passed the House on Wednesday to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declared he is coordinating trial strategy with the White House.
Though the request initially seemed to have little currency on Capitol Hill, it gained momentum in recent days as McConnell has continued to make clear he has little interest in serving as an impartial overseer of the Senate trial.
Hoyer said Democratic colleagues have approached him in recent days, citing an op-ed by constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe in which he calls on Democrats to delay sending impeachment articles to the Senate until McConnell agrees to run a fairer process.
“Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a meaningful verdict of acquittal,” Tribe wrote. Notably, House Judiciary Committee Democrats huddled with Tribe earlier this month as they practiced behind closed doors for their series of impeachment hearings.
Pelosi’s remarks, which were barely audible above the clatter of camera shutters, were so unexpected that they prompted reporters to shout over each other, interrupting the speaker at times and generating confusion about the next steps in the impeachment process.
“So you may not send them?” one reporter interjected, to which Pelosi responded: “You’re asking me, ‘So are we all going to go out and play in the snow?’ That has not been part of our conversations.”
The last-minute twist was a stunning coda to the months long House impeachment process that had been meticulously choreographed by Pelosi and other senior Democrats. After the news conference, Pelosi huddled with top committee chairs leading Trump-focused investigations, and they emerged with a consistent message: The only story that matters is the president has been impeached.
“The only thing that matters is the president of the United States was impeached today,” said Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). As for the Senate? “One step at a time,” she said.
“We defended the Constitution and we defended our democracy,” said Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). “Right now, that’s the story,” he said.
Some Democrats said they became convinced a delay in transmitting articles was under consideration when House leaders decided against naming impeachment managers — the set of lawmakers who would argue their case on the Senate floor — until an undetermined later date.
When President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, House leaders identified their impeachment managers the same day. But Pelosi instead will be empowered to pick managers at her discretion and without a deadline.
“The rule will allow the speaker to name managers at any point after the articles pass,” a senior House Democratic aide said, noting that the House needs to name managers in order to transmit the articles to the Senate.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said he's approached every member of House leadership about the idea and received responses ranging from interest to outright support. He said Pelosi, in particular, “indicated she was interested and considering it.”
“As long as we have the articles of impeachment under our control, we have an opportunity to prevent a travesty,” Blumenauer said.
Blumenauer argued that the House could use the delay to continue to build on its evidence for impeachment, and possibly to score additional legal victories that could unlock troves of new evidence and witness testimony that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. Some of those court cases could be decided within weeks.
“You can continue to build the record, you can get information and you argue for fairness and don't surrender until it’s clear that that is in the best interest of the process,” Blumenauer said.
In his remarks to reporters, Hoyer emphasized that early discussions about the timing of transmitting articles of impeachment to the Senate are “not in the context” of Tribe’s proposal. But he said colleagues keep raising it.
“People have read that article, discussed it. People have come up to me, discussed it,” he said, adding, “We will talk about it in some point in time. It’s within the speaker’s purview, obviously, she’ll make that decision. And I also think she’ll do it in discussions with McConnell and [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
68 visitors
Such deviousness! Maybe they can wait until after the 2020 election.
Probably don't want their CON-didates to miss their primary stumping...
Yup, a couple of them will face the Guillotine!
[Deleted]
I suppose they try anything they like. It's pretty clear at this point that Democrats have thrown out whatever rule book they might have been following. I don't even want to imagine what the reaction would be if they tried to remove a newly reelected president.
Pelosi could even pocket veto her own impeachment! It would deny the President the opportunity to ever say "I've been exonerated!"
[Removed]
"Blumenauer argued that the House could use the delay to continue to build on its evidence for impeachment, and possibly to score additional legal victories that could unlock troves of new evidence and witness testimony that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress."
Drag this on even longer, Trumps approval will go up, and Dems will sink even lower, losing everything they gained in the last elections.
Folks are tired of this Lefts "Hunt" for a crime !
Imagine the nerve of these rotten progressives. They want the US Senate to play by their biased rules or they wont turn over the Articles of Impeachment.
Was Pelosi an "only" child?
Way I see it Vic is the dems delivered what they have been promising , an impeachment. That's all. Pelosi thinks there is no "time limit" on choosing the "managers , who act as the houses prosecutors in the senate trial and the trial doesn't go forward until the articles are presented to the senate.
here is the problem , this house is only in power until the end of 2020, any unfinished business, such as presenting the articles , goes away when the house is no longer in session, so there is in fact a time limit to present the articles , the end of the year , after the election is done and over with.
That is a fair assessment. I don't think Pelosi will hold back once the election nears. It is interesting to see Pelosi try and control the Senate as well as the House. All those who vote for democrat representatives are to blame for this fiasco. When electing a representative or Senator it is national concerns which should supercede local ones.
That's true, but they could just reintroduce the articles and approve them the same day. And if they still didn't control the Senate, they could wait another two years, and reintroduce again. It's disgusting, but at this point, I wouldn't put anything past these people. The integrity of this process has been completely destroyed.
Whatever she does will be for political show. I hope Mitch doesn't give in to any of the Democrats demands, within reason. Treat it the same way Schiff did, along party lines.
I can't imagine the Senate leader allowing the Speaker of the House dictate what the Senate rules will be. If Pelosi wants to hold onto the Articles of Impeachment, so be it.
[Removed]
Right , IF they retain control of the house , if not , its history that wasn't followed through with waiting for a more a better time. Anything can happen with all the house seats up for election..
I would wait to hear from John Bolton and and Don McGahn under oath. Both Mulvaney and Giuliani would lie their asses off , even under oath, so they aren't needed or wanted. But Bolton and McGahn would likely tell at least some of the truth.
I dont have any problem with holding onto the impeachment articles until a fair process is devised.
I actually think the longer this goes on the better it is for the Democrats. It will finally seep into people that Trump is a no good lying cheating sob that embarrasses this country daily.
I dont see impeachment hurting the Democrats in November at all.
Why didn't Adam Schiff do that ?
I dont have any problem with holding onto the impeachment articles until a fair process is devised.
No, you want the US Senate to deny the President due process, just like the House did.
I actually think the longer this goes on the better it is for the Democrats.
You are in for another rude awakening
I dont see impeachment hurting the Democrats in November at all.
Really?
Just further proof of the old adage that there are none so blind as those who will not see!
Let's call it optimism.
No let's call it facts
So impeachment was a sham then? If their testimony wasn't necessary to impeach Trump, why is it suddenly necessary for his Senate trial. Every time Schumer whines about adding new witnesses after impeachment already occurred, it demonstrates how lacking in substance the actual impeachment is.
I dont have any problem with holding onto the impeachment articles until a fair process is devised
McConnell has already offered the same process that 100 Senators agreed to for the Clinton trial. Can't get fairer than that.
The Democrats always try to be nice and it usually doesnt work out well for them when the Trump side doesnt play nice. (Garland nomination)
McConnell and people like Graham have made a mistake by openly making it known the Senate outcome on impeachment is predetermined.
Pelosi should milk that mistake for all she can, and it appears that may be what she has planned.
Talk about projection!!!!!!! The democrats outcome on impeachment was determined the day Trump won!!!!!
But you said the Democrats would never retake the House before the 2018 election.
NOW you're saying that you knew they would retake the House the day Trump was appointed POTUS?
[deleted]
Bullshit. Trump couldn't keep his fucking mouth shut, couldn't stop obstructing Congress, and couldn't stop putting his own interests above those of the country. He also has apparently never bothered reading the Constitution and he keeps violating his oath of office.
He brought this all on himself.
Show me!
NOW you're saying that you knew they would retake the House the day Trump was appointed POTUS?
No I am not. I am saying they wanted to oust this President since the day he took office regardless of whether they controlled the House.
Were you lying then, or now?
I don't lie Ozzie and you shouldn't be calling anyone here a liar. Just like when I told you the President did not conspire with Russia or that the dems would cook up something nasty for Kavanaugh or that the Steele Dossier was used to get FISA warrants. I get it right and you can take it to the bank!
Trump will have appointed about 1/4 of the federal judges. While significant, it does not change the courts for a generation. People get sick, tired , die or resign from every lifelong job on a constant basis. It is too simplistic and premature to say that Trump has changed the courts permanently.
He didn't obstruct congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government. If they want documents or witnesses they can take it to Court. Schiff & Co didn't want to take the time to do it.
He brought this all on himself.
The haters did this just like they kept telling us they would on the day he was inaugurated.
All positives for the nation.
Even if he leaves in January of next year,
We must not let that happen! Every one of us has to vote!
Who the hell is that big fat disgusting pig in your video ItIsMe?
One of the Liberals Go-To Guys, that headed up the Trump Impeachment !
I see you didn't watch the many hours of House inquiry. That's Jerry Nadler - a NY Democrat who's the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
How in the world is this a controversial statement?
Only Vote "Blue".
God help this country !
The Dems played nice? Seems the Kavanaugh nomination escaped your notice.
Like it wasn't predetermined how it would turn out in the House. Please, please, tell me the left isn't this gullible and stupid. The House has been trying to impeach Trump since before he took office.
What the left wants to violate the rules again? Big shock. Fishing expedition part II; no, it is now 3. The Dems voted for impeachment; but now don't think they have enough evidence? Too fucking bad. If their case was that damn strong they wouldn't be worried about it. Of course since they only allowed Democrat approved witness; and none of them direct knowledge of the incident their case is only biased hard feelings (hatred of Trump), innuendo, and guessing.
Part of me really hopes that Biden wins the presidency. The left will get it's most fervent desire; a President that gets impeached before they even take office.
But Trump has almost 5 years to keep appointing judges, including some likely vacancies on the Supreme Court.
One of the most hilarious statements I have heard today!
And don't forget, impeachment for many of them
Vic do you ever pay attention to reality and the facts.
Nah, Trump has to resign, he has no choice.
Resign so then Pres. Pence can pardon him and his family. If he waits, and a Democrat gets elected, his entire family may be looking at jail time.
So did the Gorsuch nomination.
LOL not a chance.
that is too funny
Yeah like no one is sick of this circus. Hold on to that real tight John.
Please define "fair". Is this the same "fair" when talking fair share of taxes that NO ONE can pinpoint? Why yes, yes it is.
People are tired of the circus in the White House too. There is no evidence that impeachment is hurting the Democrats.
I would use it to drive Trump fucking nuts. (short drive)
Sort of turning the knife around inside him? Ya, that is exactly what progressives have been doing with everything they've done. I am sure you don't realize how bad that looks. It's like when the reporter was savagely beaten by an antifa mob. Do you think the people at home were cheering for the masked thugs? Or do you think most people felt sympathy for the reporter?
You see John, most people don't think like progressives.
Vic, I know you try hard, but you're far right ideology is not the majority of Americans. The majority of Americans think Trump is an asshole.
I dont think anyone is going to change their vote from anti-Trump to pro-Trump because he is being impeached. It's almost non- sensical to think so.
I heard this morning that a new poll indicates 48% of the people will vote against Trump next November no matter what. I dont see any of those 48% changing their minds and voting for Trump because impeachment took too long. Trump cannot be rehabilitated in the public eye.
The US still leans Conservative, John:
The majority of Americans think Trump is an asshole.
That is a silly assumption. He won in 2016 remember?
I dont think anyone is going to change their vote from anti-Trump to pro-Trump because he is being impeached.
Neither do I, but remember, not everybody is entrenched on the right or left. There are a lot of people in between. They are watching the ways things are being done in congress, just as they are reading what you and I are saying.
I heard this morning that a new poll indicates 48% of the people will vote against Trump next November no matter what.
Remember the polling prior to the 2016 election. You know, the polling you tried to modify.
Trump's polling better than he has in ages. I've never a seen a poll like the one that came out this week that had him beating all of the major democratic contenders. Remember, pre impeachment, when Biden was beating him by about 10 points?
Plus millions of young folks have been registering to vote. I'm thinking it's going to be a definite BLUE WAVE.
[DELETED]
Ok Tess, that's three times today on this seed that you've smeared the President. Either discuss the seed or I delete the nasty no value commentary.
Like 2016, eh?
No smears, truth.
Vic, your compadres regularly call names on your articles
Are you going to delete the one that called Pelosi a "skank" as well ?
You mean comrades. I'm only interested in this group. It's a place for discussion not name calling. I let her do it a few times. I warned her. She kept going. What don't you understand?
What is the Post # ?
Although it's not really nice, there's nothing wrong with the word "skank" ...
Pelosi has repeatedly shown that she's a woman of low, partisan character.
The Post # of the comment? Whoever it is will get the same warning I gave Tess. Do you understand?
It dosen't matter. I will issue the same warning I gave Tess. Some may think I will immediately delete it. No - Everyone gets the same warning and chance. That is fairness.
I just gave you a link to the comment.
Frankly, it is very close to this one. This whole thread isnt that damn big.
Warn whoever you like. Your right wing friends here call names all day and night long, every day. Shoot some of your indignation about Tessy at them why dont you?
I issued a warning.
Your right wing friends here call names all day and night long, every day.
You are only part right. Yes, they are my friends, but they don't deliberately berate a public figure like the President at every opportunity like people on the left have.
They post pictures of Pelosi with a dick, they call her and Hillary skanks, they call Obama O'bammy, and they constantly insult pretty much any female Democratic politician on a regular basis. Maybe they're misogynists because they don't seem to insult male Democrats nearly as often as they do women.
First of all, my friend, I just want to repeat what I told John - I don't want that stuff for this group. BTW I give John credit, when he is on here he tries not to do that. I give you credit because you try to avoid it at all times. I do understand that once in a while we all get a little hot under the collar and that goes for me too, but there are those who do it with every comment. Congress is even at a low point where they are doing it. Let's try and discuss topics and not unleash our rage by trolling the other side.
Pardon my confusion. I see tons of people insulting liberals on this seed, and that seems to be perfectly OK. But pointing out that they attack liberals is not OK?
52% beats 48%. It's called a landslide...but the final tally won't be that close.
Did you see the two warnings?
How about the Articles of Impeachment being tucked away in Pelosi's handbag? Any thoughts?
You deserve a lot of credit for your fair moderation, Vic.
Interesting that you posted this sentence. I just watched Nancy Pelosi's short press conference. She called Mitch McConnell "the Grim Reaper". That's not what good leadership from the House Speaker should be, IMO.
Lest you forget it was not by a majority vote.
It is a correct statement to say the majority did and still does not want Trump to be the president. Asshole might be a bit harsh though, even if accurate.
She also just said that both the President and the Senate leader had gone "rogue", then refused to take follow up questions. Now you know why people in congress are retiring. There is no reaching across the aisle or working together. All we have is the worst kind of partisanship.
Lest you forget ... US presidents are not elected by popular vote!
That's relevant these days ?
We really need to break down that vote & dissect it, don't we? Why is the state of California a write-off to democrats before every election is held? Who is voting out there? Why can't we see California's voter rolls? Ya, there is a lot to look at.
It is a correct statement to say the majority did and still does not want Trump to be the president.
That is not correct. How many voters simply vote the party in presidential elections? How much of the democratic party is progressive? How much of it is old fashioned moderate democrats? How many were simply voting for Hillary, rather than against Trump?
Apparently, Trump's 2016 electoral win still hits a nerve.
You mean congress right?
Probably not if you never get outside your bubble. Trumps approval rating right now is higher than the great obama's during the same time of his presidentcy.
Trump is already living rent free in most Democrats heads, I doubt they are driving him nuts.
Nerve'S..….with an "S" for "Shit".
I'm not surprised. Kevin McCarthy just answered a lot of questions, and wasn't afraid to do so. Prayerful Pelosi, on the other hand, only shows bravery when she has a gavel in her hand... and even then, she waffles.
She's been in a tight spot. The far left base of the democratic party demanded impeachment by Christmas. She delivered. In the meantime moderated democrats are now at risk ad polls are shifting. She projects onto McConnell and puts the impeachment away, maybe permanently.
Yep, like the one that fizzled at the doors of the Senate during the last mid terms?
Still having trouble trouble with the concept of the Electoral College? Majority vote means absolutely zip in presidential elections in this country no matter how much the progressive libersl left tries to insist it does. But I think you already knew that didn't you? Don't like it, get the law changed.
Amen John
[deleted]
Lol, yup! And Donald Trump will never be President.
You'll never learn will you John?
Do you actually think that Trump's behavior over the past three years will get him more votes? Or will it lose him votes?
When people elected him in 2016 he had not yet lied 15,000 times as president of the United States.
Most of the post 2016 elections around the country have indicated a movement away from Trump.
He will get elected again for the same reasons as last time. Although there is more of them now thanks to the three year circle jerk the resist movement has been operating.
I know it must be hard for you John but you better get used to the idea. It's that or simmer down with all the over the top, nonsensical rhetoric. And that is never going to happen with TDS ridden. Never
That many already? Last month, Trump haters claimed it was 2,000 times. Wow!
Trump is a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot and moron. He is unfit for office.
You can't fix that by telling people to calm down.
The Republicans should nominate someone else for president in 2020.
There's a problem with that idea. Nobody from the same party ever runs against the incumbent - at least not anyone with a snowball's chance in Hell of getting more than a single percentage point of the vote.
Lol ... like many people i will likely vote for him again in spite of the last four years of nonsensical, resistance bearing, tyrannical swamp creature attacks from the left. But only because there is nothing remotely better being offered on either side. Nothing even close.
But by all means keep up the attacks .... you're just reinforcing all the nails you've already secured your political coffin with.
Well, we have Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Amy Kloubachar, and even Pete Buttigieg, who are all moderates, running for president as Democrats. If none of them are acceptable to you as an alternative to Donald Trump, you've got problems nothing will be able to get past.
Trump is a KNOWN liar, crook, bigot and moron. And I dont use the word "known" lightly.
And yet you will essentially vote for him no matter what.
We are in a non shooting civil war in this country, as you have just demonstrated.
There is a group of Republicans, headed by the political consultants Rick Wilson and Steve Smith, and including George Conway and others who opened a new anti-Trump group called The Lincoln Project. Their exact purpose is to persuade people to vote for anybody BUT Trump. They dont care for Democrats, but have already explicitly stated that they will support the Democratic candidate no matter who it is, because any of them will be better than Trump. ANY OF THEM. And this is coming from Republicans.
You use it often. Maybe you should focus on other things in life.
Well, we have Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Amy Kloubachar, and even Pete Buttigieg, who are all moderates
You also have Tulsi Gabbard. Let's not cut ourselves short.
However, none of them is better than the man who is the custodian of this great economy and the reformer of everything wrong with the federal government.
Still Winning
In recent elections that is true, but historically there have been primary challenges to incumbents. Lyndon Johnson ended up dropping out in 1968 in large part because he was going to have a tough fight in the primaries from Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy.
Trump is not fit to be president for five more years. It is absurd. What will be left of our national self-respect if we RE-elect someone with his mountain of disqualifications? Right now Trump voters can plausibly say "when we voted in 2016 we didnt know much about him". In 2020 they will no longer have that excuse.
That is a bizarre response. I suppose the truth about your hero hurts.
I'm not the one with problems John. Me and mine are doing fine. Most of America is doing fine. Much more than the previous eight years anyway. I suspect you and yours are doing fine as well although i don't expect you to admit it. Those are just the facts that really get in the way of your preferred narrative. A narrative of simple hatred.
Your main problems with Trump started in earnest before his Presidency even started. Approximately on 11-09-16 when you found out your anointed one got beat by him. Nothing he could do, short of becoming Hillary, would have satisfied your blood lust against Trump. We all know that's not a rational expectation but there you go.
And you call Trump a moron? Hilarious!
I don't think that's true. I think we had a pretty good idea who Donald Trump was. Also, it's not as if the move to impeach him developed over time. It was there from the very beginning - before he was even in office.
I think any number of Republicans could seriously challenge Trump in 2020. I don't get why no one is bothering to even try.
Oh we will keep telling the truth about your trump
Won't do any good. But once he is reelected you might find other things to do with your life.
Bloomberg a moderate? You must be joking!
Bloomberg is far from moderate. For those who've forgotten ...
no one cares what he says - we only care what he does.
so far, job well done
Just like the Senate could not tell the House how to run it's impeachment inquiry, the House cannot tell the Senate how to run it's trial. Each is allowed constitutionally to set their own rules and process.
By delaying passage of that resolution, Pelosi and top Democrats retain control of the articles and hope to put pressure on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to adopt trial procedures they consider bipartisan.
I think the impeachment process in the Senate should be as fair, impartial, and non-partisan was it was in the House. The public will take this delaying tactic by the Democrats as a sign that Pelosi and gang don't have the courage of the their convictions. It will be yet another nail in the coffin of the late Democrat party and once the bill of impeachment is given to the Senate and passes from control of the Dems...it's all over
Why? Weren't you convinced of Trump's guilt already on January 20, 2017?
No, he was convinced of Trump's guilt the day Trump threw his hat in the ring as a candidate for President.
Well on that day he was guilty of being a liar, crook and bigot, but I think the moron part unfolded more slowly.
I am assuming you mean fair process considered solely by the progressive liberal left Democrats in the House...
note to all dipshits.
it is the house's job to collect evidence, not the senates.
it is not the senate's fault the house could not make their case.
Why's Paul Ryan in the photo ? He left congress at the end of 2018.
And there we have it.
Prayerful Nancy oversaw the Schiff and Nadler Show, and none of them granted "fairness" to Republicans or to the President. They couldn't find an impeachable crime, so they invented some.
Now that the House is finished with their unfair clown show, they suddenly worry about "fairness" in the Senate and are trying to retain "power" yet again ... this time with the Senate that they do not control. Keep praying, Nancy.
There's this little piece of paper called the U. S. Constitution that Nancy and her children haven't truly read nor do they understand some of its requirements.
1st - Article 1, Section 3, paragraph 6. - The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Sole power - hmmm - you get to make the rules of how YOU OPERATE - not the House of Representatives. Sorry Nancy - ain't your ballgame.
2nd - Article 1, Section 5, paragraph 2 - 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.
EACH House - i.e. House of Representative, Senate - determines how THEY WILL FUNCTION. Gee, kinda means that the House makes rules for how they're gonna function and the Senate makes rules for how they're gonna function and that NEITHER HOUSE can tell the other house how to do/manage their business - damn Nancy - guess that one kinda really puts a damper on your childish wishes, eh?
So, Nancy, why are you pushing this bullshyte that you aren't going to let the Senate, of which you are not a part of, continue with the process you and your children have dreamed up for impeaching the President - when it ain't your job to tell the Senate what they can or can not do???
Actually Pelosi doesn't have to forward the articles of impeachment to the senate until the rules of the trial are made by the senate....Thus far there isn't even broad outline of the procedure.
That's how it works 1st.
A trial in the Senate for WHAT exactly if she hasn't forwarded the Articles of Impeachment TO the Senate?
Rules for some trial that may or may not take place?
But do we know if the rules of the trial must be formalized before the articles of impeachment are sent? If the House doesn't send the articles, then there is no need for a trial so there isn't a need to set rules. All of this is unprecedented. But the Senate gets to make their rules and procedures for the trial, the House doesn't. IMO the longer Pelosi sits on this the worse it looks.
I responded to 1st comment with what I believe is the procedure or the path that Pelosi can take.
Didn't make a comment pro or con on it.
That's quite possible Snuffy. My comment was my understanding of the procedure that can take place. Not if I was supporting it or not.
It's also my understanding that she can hold the articles of impeachment until the end of the 113th congress at which time they will expire.
Didn't state you did.
Did you think l I did, based on this??????????
No
Well, consider the timing - the House did their thing yesterday, the 18th. Congress is recessing on the 20th - tomorrow - 'til 1/7/20. Not even any of my organizations could organize solid procedures in two days to conduct any form of trial. But, then again, we're talking about military organizations and they're slower than molasses in getting anything done.
The point I was making is that Pelosi is blowing smoke by stating, numerous, numerous times, that, until the Senate gives her "quid pro quo" and tells her just HOW they are going to conduct their procedures, she isn't going to forward the Impeachment Order.
Sorry, but that's a crock of BS. She ain't got that authority - and she knows it.
Actually, no, it's not unprecedented - Johnson and Clinton.
Nothing can force her to forward the articles of impeachment in any given time frame. If she holds them until the end of the 113th congress they will expire. That is my understanding.
Interesting point about the expiration. Gonna look around for that guidance.
Regardless, i'm admittedly not much of a politician but where i come from we call that chickenshit.
This game she is playing is about as untoward as it comes. Why did they proceed with impeachment if not to follow through normally with the process?
It's political chickenshit, nothing more, nothing less.
LOL, this is politics and anything is fair in politics.
Refer to the above.
OK - got it.
"Sec. 5 . Effect of Adjournment An impeachment may proceed only when Congress is in session. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2006, 2462. However, an impeachment proceeding doesnot expire with adjournment. An impeachment proceeding begun in the House in one Congress may be resumed in the next Congress. 3 Hinds Sec. 2321; 111-1, Jan. 13, 2009, p __. An official impeached by the House in one Congress may be tried by the Senate in the next Congress. Manual Sec. 620; 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2319, 2320.
"II. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALSPart of the link is cut off. I don't see where she is forced to forward the articles of impeachment in any given time frame.
I do see where it states that the articles do not expire.
Agreed and please refer back to 6.1.12 ..... emphasis on "chickenshit"
[Removed]
Please refer back to 6.1.13....emphasis on ''LOL''
Even IF every dem senator and the 2 independants that caucus with them voted to convict and then again voted for removal, there is still a shortage of about 15 votes that would have to come from the GOP to reach the 2/3rds needed for either of these votes .
Another thing I am thinking about is currently a few senators are running for the office of president , are they going to recuse themselves from the voting to avoid the appearance of using their political power for political gain? the bar is set rather low in that regard.
"Pelosi threatens to delay Senate impeachment trial"
That's not a "threat" America should be Verklempting over !
They call it " An Idle Threat " !
I'm watching Crying Chuck speak now !
I really think Nancy and Chucky are having an "affair" !
A letter from It Is Me to Crying Chucky:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Sniffles;
The Defense of Trump has been said and Noted, many, many, many times.
There was "No Crime" Proven.
Conjecture and Innuendo is NOT PROOF !
The "Innocent" are not required to "Prove" why they are "Innocent". It is the job of the "accuser" to prove the "Innocent" was "Guilty".
The "Accuser" didn't do their job !
Signed...…...
It Is Me !
I KNEW IT !
[Removed]
Shummer doesn't cry as much as your buddy trump
I wonder why Democrats have been working on impeachment for two and a half years but ONLY charged the President relating to incident that took place less then 6 months ago?
WTF were they working on exactly? Future events they couldn't possibly know would happen?
I'm curious to hear what pressure they think they can put on Mitch McConnell. Will they refuse to ever submit the articles of impeachment? Is that supposed to be threatening?
I thought removing Trump was supposed to be an emergency and this couldn't wait any longer. For the good of the country and all that. Not any more, I guess.
I've heard a lot of people on the Left do the old "so you're saying" bit, but this is one of the weirder ones, for sure.
And Democrats are upset because they think Trump acts like a dictator.
That seems to be an admission that they currently lack the evidence to support removing the president. That kind of exposes their whole process as dishonest. I guess that shouldn't surprise us considering what we learn in the past week about the FBI and FISA warrants.
They can keep fishing for new evidence, I guess, but they can't force the Senate to consider it.
It needs further "Study".
"Last night, House Democrats passed the thinnest, weakest presidential impeachment in American history. Now they’re suggesting they are too afraid to even submit their accusations to the Senate and go to trial. The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country.
These articles of impeachment are so weak that before they even passed, the Senate Democratic Leader began demanding that the Senate re-do the House’s homework. Now the Speaker is hemming and hawing about whether they'll even proceed to trial.
I am glad that leading Democrats seem to have buyer’s remorse about the least fair, least thorough, and most rushed impeachment in American history. They should. But for the sake of the country, I wish this understanding had dawned on them yesterday."
Nancy will rue the day she succumbed to the radical wing of her party.
We will know in about 319 days
You don't know anything
Today is the 21st anniversary of Bill Clinton's impeachment. Wonder if that's why they rushed it.
Naaahhhhh.
I wasn't in favor of that one either, but at least that one involved some actual crimes.
They know what Mitch is going to do with it...
Who does she think she's threatening by holding off submitting the documents? What sort of leverage does she think she has? If she does nothing, everything remains the same and it's like the impeachment never happened.
This might be the dumbest thing Pelosi's done, and that's saying something.
Trump Sets The Record For Most Votes For Impeachment
Trump shattered the previous record of 228 votes for impeachment as he piled up the most votes in history in favor of a presidential impeachment.
[deleted]
Who is Nancy Pelosi threatening? We all know Joe Biden threatened the Ukrainian government to remove someone from office. But that's not going to work here.
Meanwhile Donald Trump is on the campaign trail. Trump's rallies are in the headline news. And impeachment has given Trump something to fire up his base. Where's the Democrats?
So, far we've heard that the Democratic debates aren't fair because the 'diverse' candidates can't make the cut. Are Democrat's going to follow the Clinton model and just do fund raisers? That's the only way to get on the debate stage. We've heard Joe Biden make denial after denial and apology after apology. Biden even showed he was tough by taking on a voter but Joe needs to understand that this isn't Ukraine. Liz Warren makes a lot of proposals and can't explain any of them. Bernie Sanders is pushing Medicare for All and the other candidates are on board except Joe. Sanders wrote the damn bill but even he hasn't explained how Medicare for All is supposed to work. And we've heard that a lot of House Democrats are nervous because they were forced to support the party's latest political stunt.
Who is Nancy Pelosi threatening? Democrats? It sure seems that's what's happening.
Pelosi and the rest of the Dems seem to ignore the awful optics that are happening because they seem to be afraid to go forward to the Senate trial.
As I see it, she just wants to wave the accusation/threat in front of the public as long as possible in order to influence the public to oust him in the election. I think it will have the opposite effect - It was a terrible mistake and now there's no way for her to correct it.
You underestimate Speaker Pelosi. The House certainly has a right to a general outline of how the Senate will proceed with the trial. It's a very serious matter that you make light of.
She and McConnell have declared an impasse until after the holidays. Come back next year.
try "none
cheers
Seems like by not sending it to Senate right away, Pelosi, using the power of the Speaker, has found Trump not guilty
something tells me...
she is not sending the articles of impeachment because...
"bidens"
but,
if she does not file the paperwork trump was not impeached.
what to do... what to do... LOL
Time to put this one to bed.
Final thoughts:
A weak case, not up to the level of impeachment which had no bipartisan support will sit in Pelosi's purse. A real bad showing for democrats.
It was a fraudulent impeachment.