More farce: The House isn't sending impeachment to the Senate

[misterx]

The bigger problem is that the public isn't that stupid and they would likely inspire more people to vote for Trump.

The Demoncrat party may just be the first group to go bankrupt underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

I don't know, I don't think it's possible to underestimate the intelligence of the public.

[TheCount]

Please quote the relevant part of the Constitution.

HINT: it doesn't say that the House can impeach without filing charges with the Senate.

It doesn't say that they can't. It also gives them the sole power.

[susano]

While Nancy Pelosi threatens to withhold articles of impeachment passed Wednesday night by the House, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldmansays that President Trump isn't technically impeached until the House actually transmits the articles to the Senate.

Feldman, who testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings earlier this month, argues in a Bloomberg Op-Ed that the framers' definition of impeachment "assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote," and that "Strictly speaking, "impeachment" occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial."

If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.
That’s because “impeachment” under the Constitution means the House sending its approved articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached.
As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, “TRUMP IMPEACHED,” those are a media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement. So far, the House has voted to impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn’t impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the Senate and the House members deliver the message. -Noah Feldman

There's more:

But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.
If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.

In closing, Feldman says "if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong justification that he was never actually impeached," adding "And that’s probably not the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send."



More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...rvard-law-prof

If a DA indicts someone but never goes for a preliminary hearing, is it still an indictment? Ha! Sounds like Buddhist paradox- or something out of Kafka (like his novel, The Trial).

@Swordsmyth - so sorry I didn't see this thread before I posted the McConnell video. I would have put it here.

I wonder if Amash is raising his hand ("pick me!") to be an impeachment manager.

[susano]

McConnell should forget the impeachment and start a senate investigation into 2016 election meddling by the Ukraine and the actions of Joe and Hunter Biden.

He should but I highly doubt he will because of what really went down in Ukraine, which is the CIA/State Dept/and globalist Democraps & neocons, working with George Soros, orchestrated that coup and these guys were all up in it:

[Swordsmyth]

It doesn't say that they can't. It also gives them the sole power.

It says they only have the powers it gives them and it gives them sole power to impeach NOT to define what impeachment is.

[Zippyjuan]

It says they only have the powers it gives them and it gives them sole power to impeach NOT to define what impeachment is.

Who has that power- under the Constitution?

[susano]

I disagree. Up until now she's been very effective in the corrupt things she has been trying to do. Now she seems like a deer in the headlights.

Agreed. She's a very shrewd old bat who has spent her entire life in politics. It's because of Democrap identity politics and pandering to the most extreme useful idiots that their base became substantially made up of them and they demanded this. Piglosi did not want to go down this road, remember. She called it "divisive", which translated to "we've got nothing and we'll lose the House if we do it" but she was hounded and caved in an attempt to placate the Bolshevik freaks. This time she's gone a bridge too far and scrambling to come up with a convoluted legal strategy to save a move she correctly opposed - and she's up against McConnell who isn't in the least impressed with or intimidated by her. I don't play chess but believe this would be checkmate.

[jmdrake]

It doesn't say that they can't. It also gives them the sole power.

It says they only have the powers it gives them and it gives them sole power to impeach NOT to define what impeachment is.

The House has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. Nancy Pelosi is violating the constitution by trying to dictate the terms of the impeachment trial in the Senate. The same "sole power" that allowed her to run roughshod in the House gives her absolutely no power in the Senate. McConnell could in this charade tomorrow if he wanted to. After all, nothing in the constitution says that the House even has a right to send over "House Managers" to prosecute the impeachment. Yes...that's the way it's been done in the past, but Nancy has now brought us into uncharted territory.

From the constitution.

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.

[Swordsmyth]

Who has that power- under the Constitution?

Common law or legislation passed by both houses and signed by the President.

[Zippyjuan]

Common law or legislation passed by both houses and signed by the President.

Actually House rules- according to the Constitution. The House has the sole powers of impeachment.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually House rules- according to the Constitution. The House has the sole powers of impeachment.

That's not what that means.

That means they are empowered to impeach, it doesn't mean they get to define what impeachment is.

And since the Senate is empowered to try impeachments then the Senate rules would be better able to be argued to define what impeachment is and they require the articles to be submitted to them.

[jmdrake]

Actually House rules- according to the Constitution. The House has the sole powers of impeachment.

And the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. Pelosi is trying to usurp the power of the Senate. Case closed.

[Zippyjuan]

That's not what that means.

That means they are empowered to impeach, it doesn't mean they get to define what impeachment is.

And since the Senate is empowered to try impeachments then the Senate rules would be better able to be argued to define what impeachment is and they require the articles to be submitted to them.

The House decides on what charges a President (or other official) is to be impeached. They vote on those charges- if the members of the House agree, the President is then officially impeached. The Senate then has to hold a trial and decide if the charges have merit or not. The House sets the rules for their part of the process, the Senate sets the rules for their part of the process but by the time it gets to the Senate, the President has already been impeached.

[susano]

If what you say is true, then it would be a slam dunk opportunity to prove it on the floor of the Senate.

So why don't they?

Because they don't have a case, that's why.

[jmdrake]

That's not what that means.

That means they are empowered to impeach, it doesn't mean they get to define what impeachment is.

And since the Senate is empowered to try impeachments then the Senate rules would be better able to be argued to define what impeachment is and they require the articles to be submitted to them.

The House decides on what charges a President (or other official) is to be impeached. They vote on those charges- if the members of the House agree, the President is then officially impeached. The Senate then has to hold a trial and decide if the charges have merit or not.

You are both right and wrong at the same time. The House has the sole power to impeach which gives it the sole power to define the impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment, which means the Senate has the sole power to set the rules for the Senate trial. So....Nancy Pelosi is violating the constitution by trying to condition sending over the articles of impeachment to the Senate agreeing to what she thinks the rules should be. In effect she is trying to do a quid pro quo.

[Swordsmyth]

The House decides on what charges a President (or other official) is to be impeached. They vote on those charges- if the members of the House agree, the President is then officially impeached. The Senate then has to hold a trial and decide if the charges have merit or not. The House sets the rules for their part of the process, the Senate sets the rules for their part of the process but by the time it gets to the Senate, the President has already been impeached.

The House must file their charges with the Senate or impeachment is incomplete.
Just as you and your lawyer may chose to sue someone and fill out the papers but they haven't been sued until you file the papers.

[Swordsmyth]

You are both right and wrong at the same time. The House has the sole power to impeach which gives it the sole power to define the impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment, which means the Senate has the sole power to set the rules for the Senate trial. So....Nancy Pelosi is violating the constitution by trying to condition sending over the articles of impeachment to the Senate agreeing to what she thinks the rules should be. In effect she is trying to do a quid pro quo.

The power to do something is NOT the power to define that thing.
If it were the House could define impeachment as taking the President into custody and holding him in a cell. (but they can't do that)

[susano]

Third in line...

And Schitthead is after Pence for that reason.

[Danke]

And Schitthead is after Pence for that reason.

yep

[Zippyjuan]

The House must file their charges with the Senate or impeachment is incomplete.
Just as you and your lawyer may chose to sue someone and fill out the papers but they haven't been sued until you file the papers.

Link? Or for the umpteenth time, fail to support that claim?

[jmdrake]

The power to do something is NOT the power to define that thing.
If it were the House could define impeachment as taking the President into custody and holding him in a cell. (but they can't do that)

Defining the reasons for impeachment and defining, defining the rules for impeachment, and defining the punishment for impeachment are all separate things. The constitution is explicit on the punishment which is only removal from office and prevention of future holding of office. It's looser on the reasons for impeachment "Bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors", it's totally silent on the rules, except to say that the House has the sole authority for impeachment and the Senate has sole authority for the trial.

Anyway, you're barking up the wrong tree. The reason why Pelosi can't hold up the articles in order to dictate to the Senate is because the Senate has the sole power to do the trial. That means they have the sole power to define the rules that the trial will be conducted under just like the House had the sole power to define the rules under which the trial takes place. Rand Paul understands this which is why he kept saying that once there is a trial (in the Senate) the President's right to face his accuser (i.e. the "whistle blower") will be in effect. We are past impeachment now. What was done in the House is done. McConnell and the Republicans have the sole right to define what happens in the Senate. I hope you see where I'm going with this.

[susano]

Was Hunter Biden witness to Trump asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival?

Hunter Biden and his father were selling influence to cash in on Ukrainian political corruption. Joe Biden running in the Democrap primaries is irrelevant. It was his own bragging before the CFR that put him on the radar.

[jmdrake]

Link? Or for the umpteenth time, fail to support that claim?

Irrelevant. The House can take their articles of impeachment and shove them up their arses. The Senate has the sole authority to determine what happens next once the articles of impeachment have been passed. There's nothing preventing the Senate from saying "We can read the articles of impeachment on the Internet. We don't give a flip if Nancy Pelosi sends them over or not. We are moving forward based on our own rules. We don't even have to have any House Managers. That is a courtesy we did in the past. We are dispensing with that formality now."

[Swordsmyth]

Defining the reasons for impeachment and defining, defining the rules for impeachment, and defining the punishment for impeachment are all separate things. The constitution is explicit on the punishment which is only removal from office and prevention of future holding of office. It's looser on the reasons for impeachment "Bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors", it's totally silent on the rules, except to say that the House has the sole authority for impeachment and the Senate has sole authority for the trial.

Anyway, you're barking up the wrong tree. The reason why Pelosi can't hold up the articles in order to dictate to the Senate is because the Senate has the sole power to do the trial. That means they have the sole power to define the rules that the trial will be conducted under just like the House had the sole power to define the rules under which the trial takes place. Rand Paul understands this which is why he kept saying that once there is a trial (in the Senate) the President's right to face his accuser (i.e. the "whistle blower") will be in effect. We are past impeachment now. What was done in the House is done. McConnell and the Republicans have the sole right to define what happens in the Senate. I hope you see where I'm going with this.

You are a lawyer, right?
If you and your client decide to sue someone and fill out the papers but don't file them with the court have you sued anyone?

The Senate is the court.

What I am discussing is the legal consequences of Nutty Nancy failing to file the papers with the Senate not her intent to blackmail the Senate and usurp their power.

[jmdrake]

Was Hunter Biden witness to Trump asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival?

Hunter Biden is a witness to the circumstances that led to his father being a legitimate target of a criminal investigation as opposed to a political rival. Running for POTUS does not give one immunity from investigation and/or prosecution.

[Swordsmyth]

Link? Or for the umpteenth time, fail to support that claim?

I linked to the Senate rules that say so.

The Senate is the court for impeachments and they get to set the rules.

It's also just a basic legal principle.

[susano]

But now they can, right?

Using the court analogy, they can but don't have to. A defendant doesn't have to prove anything. The prosecution has to prove their case and they have to prove that they have a case at a preliminary hearing before even getting to trial. They can't.

[Zippyjuan]

I linked to the Senate rules that say so.

The Senate is the court for impeachments and they get to set the rules.

It's also just a basic legal principle.

The Senate rules for how the Senate should conduct their impeachment trial do not apply to the House impeachment process. It did not say that there is no impeachment until the Senate gets the paperwork. The papers have been signed but not delivered. Once the House votes, the President is impeached.

[Swordsmyth]

The Senate rules for how the Senate should conduct their impeachment trial do not apply to the House impeachment process. It did not say that there is no impeachment until the Senate gets the paperwork. The papers have been signed but not delivered. Once the House votes, the President is impeached.

The Senate (the court that determines the rules of the procedure) says that in order to conduct an impeachment the House must file the articles with the Senate which is exactly what every other court says about every other legal case.

The President is not impeached until the House files the charges anymore than you can be sued without the plaintiff filing the case with a court.

[Zippyjuan]

The Senate (the court that determines the rules of the procedure) says that in order to conduct an impeachment the House must file the articles with the Senate which is exactly what every other court says about every other legal case.

The President is not impeached until the House files the charges anymore than you can be sued without the plaintiff filing the case with a court.

You have repeated and repeated and repeated that claim but been unable to prove it is true.

The House has the sole power to impeach. US Constitution.