Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

a reply to: xuenchen

LOL Wait, isn't it often said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich?

Any grand jury except for one made up of right wing ATS members would indict him.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The senate has been told.

They have cable tv don't they?

That's not how things work.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sillyolme

Wait, isn't it often said that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich?

Yep.

And just think... the Democrats in the House couldn't even manage to do that.

Donald Trump will not be impeached in 2019. See you next year.

TheRedneck

Confirmed: President Trump is Not Impeached Yet.

www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Yeah.

I don't think so.

The senate has been told.

They have cable tv don't they?

LOL....so you are also smarter than the Harvard Constiturional Law Professor who was also one of the Democratic Impeachment witnesses? Noah Feldman is his name....he wrote the article.

But hey....I don't EVER expect much real knowledge from your posts.

a reply to: carewemust

I really think there is no clear answer, lots of opinions from insignificant people who arent really in a position to make an official opinion. Now if the dems actually tried what I've heard some suggest, just hold the articles and keep raising up the issue that trump is impeached till election day, it might be worthwhile for the republicans to raise the question in the courts and maybe we could get a supreme court decision, which would be quite authoritive.. we would have our answer.

originally posted by: carewemust
Confirmed: President Trump is Not Impeached Yet.

www.foxnews.com...

This is what I have been saying the whole time, if articles are held back from the Senate... then Trump hasn't been officially impeached....

The Dems will have to wait till next year for their impeachment... or maybe indefinitely lol

a reply to: Vasa Croe

How much of constitutional scholar witness Noah Feldman's impeachment hearing testimony did you agree with? I guess you also agree with his opinion that Trump committed impeachable acts?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sillyolme

The senate has been told.

They have cable tv don't they?

That's not how things work.

TheRedneck

Since Chuck Schumer and Mitch Mc Connell already has their first Senate rules meeting, I'm thinking that things work a little differently than you expected.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Yeah.

I don't think so.

The senate has been told.

They have cable tv don't they?

This is why you must continue to post.

Comedy gold.

a reply to: dawnstar

It's just as well that things are in limbo right now. Gives the Supreme Court time to decide if the articles are so "weak", they can be invalidated. No need for the U.S. Senate to be distracted by this scam.

SCOTUS's ROLE: www.nationalreview.com...

I love how all the Dems suddenly think this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dawnstar

It's just as well that things are in limbo right now. Gives the Supreme Court time to decide if the articles are so "weak", they can be invalidated. No need for the U.S. Senate to be distracted by this scam.

SCOTUS's ROLE: www.nationalreview.com...

It would be better if the Senate takes it up. They can bring out all the facts, not just the ones the Democrats made up, like Schiff's fake transcript of the call, and drive the point home about how absurd this entire thing is.

ETA: Only way I think it's better the SCOTUS route is if SCOTUS rules against the Dems handily, like 7-2 or better yet 9-0, so they can't just whine about Trump's "majority" on the SCOTUS being the deciding factor.

a reply to: face23785

Personally, I would like the Senate trial to be used to illustrate how the last President abused his power and obstructed Congress (fast-n-furious) (Threatening Ukraine). If one is guilty, both are guilty...and the converse is true.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: face23785

Personally, I would like the Senate trial to be used to illustrate how the last President abused his power and obstructed Congress (fast-n-furious) (Threatening Ukraine). If one is guilty, both are guilty...and the converse is true.

Arguing that both Trump and Obama are guilty is the best way to exonerate Trump? I'm not sure I agree with you there bud. They're not apples to apples cases anyway.

a reply to: dawnstar

I really think there is no clear answer

I think there is.

According to the Constitution (I linked and quoted the applicable sections on page 1 if you're interested), impeachment is a two-part process. It starts with an indictment of sorts (the impeachment) in the House of Representatives, then is tried legally before the Senate. If the Senate is unable to try the case because the House will not deliver Articles of Impeachment, then there is no impeachment in the House and the whole process stops.

That does not mean there won't be. As has been pointed out, there is no time limit specified in the Constitution binding the House to immediately deliver the Articles of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi can theoretically wait until after the 2020 election to deliver them (but in that case her delay changed the makeup of the House and therefore I can see a legal argument that a new vote must be called... but that's for a future thread) and at that point President Trump would be impeached. She could wait until 2025 when Trump is out of office if she wants to. Of course, at that point Trump is already removed and it's an exercise in futility to try and remove someone already removed, but that's another thread. All it means is that until she delivers the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, there is no impeachment. She has been authorized by the House to deliver those Articles of Impeachment, but she has to follow through.

The story about wanting to see who to send to the trial is moot. She can change her decision after the rules are announced.

What did we all hear for several days? President Trump is a danger to the election and to national security! He must be impeached NOW! NOW! NOW! OK, they got the impeachment vote NOW... but Pelosi, who was one of those demanding immediate action, is now the one delaying things. That's the point. I just saw Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) giving an interview. When asked what will happen if the Articles are not delivered, she replied "We'll just go back to work. We still have judges to confirm." The Senate cannot even begin a trial until there is a formal accusation and active prosecution.

And as much as a poster above tried to say, announcing the impeachment vote on cable TV is not the same as officially presenting an accusation.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What did we all hear for several days? President Trump is a danger to the election and to national security! He must be impeached NOW! NOW! NOW! OK, they got the impeachment vote NOW... but Pelosi, who was one of those demanding immediate action, is now the one delaying things. ...

Notice how the MSM is shouting this from every rooftop???? Yeah, right!....**crickets**

Somebody really needs to start initiating some Treason charges against folks like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Since Chuck Schumer and Mitch Mc Connell already has their first Senate rules meeting, I'm thinking that things work a little differently than you expected.

Then you're thinking wrong. I expected the Senate to start working on the rules because no one expected Nervous Nancy to suddenly change her mind again. I do not expect them to continue to work on rules until she decides to follow through on the impeachment... as I said, no sense wasting time on something that may not even happen. They have Federal judges to confirm! So far they've put about 180 conservative judges in the courts... and there's more to come!



(We call that "winning.")

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There can be no prohibition against investigating any Presidential campaign, especially when one considers that Joe Biden is not even yet an official candidate for President. He is a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

This point right here should anger democrats greatly. It is obvious that the DNC primary is simply a entertaining show and as in 2016 primaries, the DNC doesn't give a hoot on what their voters want, they have already chosen Biden to be their candidate. It is a foregone conclusion, just as they had propped up Hillary over Bernie.

I must admit, I cannot believe how some can be so loyal to a party that believes you are to stupid to choose your own candidate to represent you.

a reply to: rickymouse

The dems would not be in trouble in any event since this is not an improper impeachment.