Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Constitutional process also demands an impartial jury. Mitch Mc Connell and Lindsey Graham both pledged they would their violate their constitutional oaths.

Wrong on so many fronts. What a double-standard after seeing what the House did?!

They pledged to uphold the Constitution. That is their pledge. In that pledge, the Constitution says the SENATE is the jury - "he Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments". HOW they conduct the trial is also solely up to them, with the oversight of the Judiciary to abide with the laws of the land.

On January 13, 1993, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist put his dictionaries away and settled any doubts about all three cases. On behalf of a unanimous court, he ruled that authority over impeachment trials “is reposed in the Senate and nowhere else.

The Supreme Court has already decided that the Senate has complete authority over the impeachment trial.

So no, they have not violated their oath, in fact... they are doing exactly what is asked of them to uphold it.

~Namaste

a reply to: toolgal462

And as much of I read of the post I think you are referring to...
It seems to be pretty much what I said in my post. It even starts out with if the house fails to deliver the articles to the senate...
My words were move like if the actually try to hold onto them till election day... and my point basically ended with they would be inviting the supreme court to interfere and slap them down to size... if my memory is serving me right.
But, then, it is a case of denying due process and has nothing to do with how weak or meritless anyone thinks the case may be.
Your post that I was responding to seemed to suggest that the supreme court would intervene see imply because some think the process was unfair, or the evidence isnt good enough, or whatever. The supreme court ain't gonna jump into this mess without a really good reason to... the reason you gave were probably uttered by the supporters of every other president that has been impeached and hasn't prompted the court to step in.
Holding onto to the articles indefinitely though hasn't been tried yet though and I do think that could prompt them to come into the picture... quite strongly.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Time will tell but honestly I think it was all a ploy to give Trump black mark to the public. All we've heard is that DJT has been impeached. It seems like it was more of a publicity stunt than anything. So now we'll see if she officially submits the paperwork.

If that was the ploy, it didn't work. It's been a black mark for the Democrats in the polling.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

That’s why, according to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” Of course, when elected to the Senate, all senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. But the senators, when sitting as a court, are asked to take an additional oath. It is a juror’s and judge’s oath—not a legislator’s oath.

Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

washingtonmonthly.com...

Holding back articles of impeachment from the Senate unless they do X sounds like a clear quid pro quo.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Besides, I dont think that anyone can honestly say that there wasn't a tad bit of a vengeful spirit showing itself occasionally on the house side. Kind of like, well this is how you treated us in the past, now its payback time!
Maybe the political bias, on both sides is kind of necessary? I mean removing a president is a rather big thing. But, so is having one running rogue. This way we have one party on watch, quick to point out any possible wrong doings while the others, who it is assumed would at least care enough about our democratic republic to want prevent any real harm coming to it, deciding if the possible harm they see is threatening enough to lay their bias aside.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

So you hear obviously what you want to hear so that you can feel good about feeling so horrible for wanting someone to be brandished a criminal without having a fair trial. That is the most un-American thing you or anyone else can ask for, and may God have mercy on you if/when you are ever wrongly convicted of a crime.

Nancy P calling him a rogue president.

Where does she get off calling him that?

This is making me crazy

a reply to: Stormdancer777

Nancy P calling him a rogue president.

Where does she get off calling him that?

Would you have been happier if she called him a "devolved" president?

Article 1

IV. When the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States, upon whom the powers and duties of the Office of President shall have devolved, shall be impeached...

(interesting article) washingtonmonthly.com...

a reply to: Stormdancer777

If the Senate doesnt at least make an attempt to appear to be providing that fair trial and it leaves half the country still wanting answers, it will be the Senate depriving him of the fair trial though.
It's not really doing trump any good for them to just sweep it all under the rug. It doesnt do anyone any good.

a reply to: dawnstar

So, are you suggesting that if she had sent them over, the senate would have opted to skip Christmas break and hang out in washington to hash out the rules? Of course they wouldn't have and I am sure you are not suggesting that.

No, not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that the Senate would reconvene ready to start getting the rules together and get the trial underway. As it is, I doubt they are even thinking about rules (well, except for Schumer who suddenly seems to have found his voice).

And there would be no question that Nancy Pelosi thought this was important and needed to be fast-tracked, and she fully intended to follow through. She could brag over the holidays about how Trump really is impeached.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

No, they haven't officially been passed to the Senate but the articles exist and have been ratified by vote in the House.

Correct.

And all they have to do is officially deliver the articles and Trump then must be tried. The Senate cannot refuse to accept the articles.

Correct again! You're on a roll!

I'm not sure how any delay has anything to do with the inevitability of the articles being officially delivered?

It probably doesn't. But it sure is fun to watch people like you realize that Trump is still President and Pelosi is a bald-faced liar.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

The house has the sole power to impeach. And there is very little in the constitution as to how that should be done.

Well, there is that part about requiring "high crimes and misdemeanors."

I doubt the Supreme Court will get involved, though. They prefer to stay out of partisan bickering.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
Time will tell but honestly I think it was all a ploy to give Trump black mark to the public. All we've heard is that DJT has been impeached. It seems like it was more of a publicity stunt than anything. So now we'll see if she officially submits the paperwork.

If that was the ploy, it didn't work. It's been a black mark for the Democrats in the polling.

Even CNN's own polling is showing that this has only made Trump more popular.

Pelosi's actions have completely undermined her own claims that impeachment was needed urgently. (Yeah, it's so urgent that... she's going to toss the papers in a drawer and play political games with the Senate.)

Meanwhile, Schumer's demand to call more witnesses is a tacit admission that Democrats don't really have any evidence of wrongdoing, and are still hoping they can find some if they look under a few more rocks.

This will end up in history books as an archetypal example of a circular firing squad.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

That’s why, according to Article I, section 3, clause 6 of the Constitution, senators, when sitting on a trial of impeachment, “shall be on Oath or Affirmation.” Of course, when elected to the Senate, all senators swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. But the senators, when sitting as a court, are asked to take an additional oath. It is a juror’s and judge’s oath—not a legislator’s oath.

Rule XXV of the Senate Rules in Impeachment Trials provides the text: “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that in all things appertaining to the trial of ____, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God.”

washingtonmonthly.com...

And your point is what?

You, nor I, nor the American People, determine what "impartial justice" is, and furthermore, simply based on what the House did to the President and the minority, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. The House made the rules for how they conducted the impeachment, the Senate makes the rules on the trial, period. How they make the rules for the trial is separate from how justice is determined in the trial, impartially or not, and that is why the Supreme Court justice presides over it.

Nice try. The hypocrisy is as deplorable as you and your party think of Trump supporters.

~Namaste

a reply to: TheRedneck

But, depending on how you want to interpret the facts there could very well be high crimes and misdemeanors.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

But, depending on how you want to interpret the facts there could very well be high crimes and misdemeanors.

And, I guess it all depends upon what your definition of "is" is....right? Typical wordsmithing rhetoric that is endemic in the Democratic mindset. When words are in doubt, put doubt upon the words and redefine them to your advantage.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Interpreting facts is not the same as interpreting words.
I'll give you an example..
Fact one.. rudy had to friends that were helping him in the ukraine bit. They were arrested recently.
Fact two... rudy was butt dialing around the same time as their arrest and in one he was heard saying he needed a few hundred thousand dollars.
Fact three, which has recently been revealed. A month before the arrest, an oligarch by the name of firtash wired a million dollars to one of these guys wife.
Our govt has been trying to get firtash extradited to the us for some time now and I believe the country he is in finally agreed to allow the extradition awhile back. But, the us has not made a move to get him.
You can do a search and validate what I am saying, but I also believe that frick and frack was heading to the same city that firtash was holed up in when they where arrested and rudy has already said on air that he was planning on meeting up with them the next day.

I've tried to follow the logic some of the rights use to assert their "facts" and I believe these facts just as strongly prove that rudy and his friends were being paid by the oligarch to fund their exploits in ukraine. That maybe firtash has the means to produce realistic forgeries of documents to be used to put forward whatever story rudy would want to put forward and that was why he was heading there. And that maybe, there was an agreement to help rudy dig up his biden dirt in exchange for the trump admin neglecting to bring him to the us to face justice.
Of course on their own, they prove nothing, just like many of the "facts" the right uses to assert truth really dont prove anything. But it does seem to be another thread that could be pulled, more circumstantial evidence even when added to the rest. I mean how can you claim you are worrying about corruption in the ukraine when you have enlisted the help of rudy, frick, and frack who are not only using a corrupt oligarch as a source for their information, but getting money from him?

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Honestly, it doesn't matter.

The Democrats got what they wanted which is to say they impeached Trump even if technically, the impeachment isn't really official. They will just go into the election season claiming Trump was impeached even if he wasn't.

The NPC leftist won't know the difference... they will then claim it is the Senate that is holding things up by not playing fair.

100% agree. And the media will continue to brand him as "impeached" regardless if he technically was or not.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Krakatoa

Interpreting facts is not the same as interpreting words.
I'll give you an example..
Fact one.. rudy had to friends that were helping him in the ukraine bit. They were arrested recently.
Fact two... rudy was butt dialing around the same time as their arrest and in one he was heard saying he needed a few hundred thousand dollars.
Fact three, which has recently been revealed. A month before the arrest, an oligarch by the name of firtash wired a million dollars to one of these guys wife.
Our govt has been trying to get firtash extradited to the us for some time now and I believe the country he is in finally agreed to allow the extradition awhile back. But, the us has not made a move to get him.
You can do a search and validate what I am saying, but I also believe that frick and frack was heading to the same city that firtash was holed up in when they where arrested and rudy has already said on air that he was planning on meeting up with them the next day.

I've tried to follow the logic some of the rights use to assert their "facts" and I believe these facts just as strongly prove that rudy and his friends were being paid by the oligarch to fund their exploits in ukraine. That maybe firtash has the means to produce realistic forgeries of documents to be used to put forward whatever story rudy would want to put forward and that was why he was heading there. And that maybe, there was an agreement to help rudy dig up his biden dirt in exchange for the trump admin neglecting to bring him to the us to face justice.
Of course on their own, they prove nothing, just like many of the "facts" the right uses to assert truth really dont prove anything. But it does seem to be another thread that could be pulled, more circumstantial evidence even when added to the rest. I mean how can you claim you are worrying about corruption in the ukraine when you have enlisted the help of rudy, frick, and frack who are not only using a corrupt oligarch as a source for their information, but getting money from him?

Facts require sources. Primary sources that can be used to uncover whether they truly are facts or suppositions, interpretations, and presumptions. Using second, third, or fourth hand accounts and hearsay is not enough, and should NEVER be used against a person when political bias is so rampant in this country.

a reply to: Krakatoa

lawandcrime.com...