No Senate Impeachment Trial Until Chuck Schumer Gives Nancy Pelosi the Green Light.

I have posted it,along with others, it is a strategy for 2020....it is the plan to run against an impeached president not an acquitted one.

a reply to: carewemust

The illogical U.S. Media, and House Democrats, think they're intimidating Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) into giving-in to demands for certain Witnesses and other parameters, made by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Intimidate McConnell? LOL!!! McConnell has all the power he needs to do the right thing -- with or without Schumer or Pelosi. And McConnell knows it. Will he do it?

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.

Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

Case closed.

ETA: Pollak : Senate Can Acquit Even If House Withholds Articles of Impeachment

McConnell didn't get where he is because he's such a saint. He's as corrupt as the rest of the critters.

He has a press conference in a few hours. Let him shock me and prove me wrong...

a reply to: carewemust

I like Nancy Pelosi. I think she's done a good job.

a reply to: dfnj2015

At snippin all over that GD piece of paper called the us constitution.

I agree.

This whole thing is "Election Meddling"....

Only Impeached President to ever be Re-Elected, will be a new title He gets soon.

originally posted by: neo96

The Senate has the SOLE POWER to try impeachments.

Pelosi can go pound sand.

She can't shake down the senate.

GOP has 23 seats up in senate for 2020. She wants to drag this out until then hoping they pick up a bunch of seats and secure the vote. And drag Trumps name through the mud during the presidential election of course.

a reply to: neo96

Ya, I know... trump is the only one allowed to make confetti out of our constitution. Which it seems he does everytime his lawyers argue on his behalf in a court of law.

a reply to: neo96

Don't feed the troll.

a reply to: theatreboy

I've been one of those also making the case that this is for optics and being able to run against an "impeached" candidate.

I just saw that the Conservative Treehouse is making the case that this is a legal strategy to in accordance with other cases pending against Trump:

What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it. The Lawfare crew will argue to the lower courts, and to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.

The material they have been seeking is: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records. Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

It was apparently first mentioned in a WaPo op-ed a few days ago:

Lawfare’s legal svengali Lawrence Tribe recently penned an op-ed with this type of recommendation; and it appears the community that worships Tribe, including the House lawyers writ large, are following his advice.

While Politico outlines the plan from a position if the scheme as a new idea, the fact the House impeachment rules were changed to drop the appointment of the managers speaks to considerable forethought on this type of plan.

Cunn ing Lawfare Maneuver – House Will Withhold Submission of Articles from Senate…

I'm not sure what to think of it yet, but it is intriguing. Just thought I'd share.

Yeah, THIS is why the stain of impeachment will not tarnish Donald Trump's presidency.
History will view the impeachment like the " bipartisan inquiry": partisan, merit-less, ersatz.
Trump gets the distinction of being the ONLY President to be Impeached by ONE PARTY & NO TRIAL in the Senate.
Without sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, there's no chance of removal from office.
No removal from office or even a trial confirms the impotent, counterproductive, do-nothing Democrats can't finish anything except their meals while they continue to attack our Republic under the guise of mob-rule democracy.

ganjoa

a reply to: ATruGod

Exactly. The only abuse of power was committed by the Democrats.

House Democrats violated the Bill of Rights in pursuing their impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

First Amendment: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), which led the impeachment inquiry, released a 300-page report in which he printed phone logs purportedly belonging to Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and journalist John Solomon. Schiff has never made clear what authority granted him the power to snoop on a journalist (among others) — a violation of freedom of the press.

Fourth Amendment: Schiff’s snooping on phone logs violated the protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” There are exceptions for legitimate law enforcement investigations, but there is no exception for lawmakers, and Schiff’s inquiry had no law enforcement purpose;

Fifth Amendment: President Trump was denied the due process rights guaranteed to his predecessors in prior impeachment inquiries.

Sixth Amendment: Democrats violated the president’s right to counsel when they snooped on Giuliani’s phone records, even making a public record of his conversations with the White House, potentially violating attorney-client privilege.

All this abuse of power by the DemocRATS, yet Pelosi wants the Senate to run a "fair" and "impartial" trial. She has no right to tell the Senate how to proceed with a Constitutional process that clearly states: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

This banana republic is on the verge of collapse.

That move is with in character for the Democrats; they have not conducted themselves scrupulously to this point, why would they start now?

I would not find fault if the Republicans lied to the Democrats about meeting some arbitrary demands and then double crossed them later. An eye for an eye as it where.

But a much more dignified response would be for McConnell to state once on the record that he will not be extorted by a House that is miss using its power and further bring shame to the legislative branch. That he awaits the articles, that where "so gravely important last night", and won't speak of the matter again until he has them on his desk. Than when anyone asks him about it in the future he should simply refer them to the record.


I don't understand why Democrats are so willing to allow themselves to be painted into the party of people who are uncaring, obstructionist and out for personal political gain. The Republicans don't even have to say anything on the mater; the Democrats are doing it all to themselves.

I think they may be under the same mistaken impression they where under in 2016. They where so enamored with their own reflection back than that they fooled themselves into believing their core party base was large enough that they didn't need to worry about running an effective campaign; they wrongly believed all they had to do was rial up that base. They found out that thir base was not nearly big enough to insure their victory. Instead of learning from that mistake it seems they are doomed to repeat it once again.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: kwakakev

Until President Trump is acquitted by the Senate, the only label he'll wear is "INDICTED".

Actually, he will ALWAYS wear the label "INDICTED" and be part of that exclusive happy crew.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: neo96

Ya, I know... trump is the only one allowed to make confetti out of our constitution. Which it seems he does everytime his lawyers argue on his behalf in a court of law.

Re-read what you just posted.

Maybe sit down first before the stupidity of it sinks in.

So they impeach the president over quid pro quo and bribery and then try to get the Senate to do it their way by using power to compel another party or group to do their bidding, "Nice idea that you want to hold a trial over there in the Senate. Do the way *we* want, or else we'll never send over the legal paperwork *you* require ..." which is essentially the very same quid pro quo and bribery/extortion they are impeaching a president over.

Democrats would have no standards if they didn't have double standards.

originally posted by: carewemust
Thursday, December 19, 2019

She is Not passing them to the Republican-Controlled Senate, until Senate Democrat demands are agreed to, by Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Hrmm…..sounds similar to a Quid Pro Quo to me!?1!

IMPEACH!!!!!

a reply to: nataliep

What rule will they not follow and where in the Constitution is that rule found?

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
OH NO! Not the witnesses!

doob
-|0|-

(surprised Pikachu face)

Dude, you don't actually post anything of merit, you're a literal troll.

Seriously, go troll somewhere else.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: neo96

Ya, I know... trump is the only one allowed to make confetti out of our constitution. Which it seems he does everytime his lawyers argue on his behalf in a court of law.

After what the House has been doing, I don't think you honestly know what you're talking about, sit this one out.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: neo96

Ya, I know... trump is the only one allowed to make confetti out of our constitution. Which it seems he does everytime his lawyers argue on his behalf in a court of law.

How many cases has he lost? Seems like in the end he wins basically every time despite activist judges in lower courts ruling against him, and even admitting they do so because they don't like the things he says.