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

[Swordsmyth]

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.
Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
A cunning Lawfare ploy.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place. By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.
It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.
As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.

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).


Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment case sits in limbo.
The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President.
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.

More at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com...s-from-senate/


This is not an impeachment.

[enhanced_deficit]

They may drag the process but would be surprised if it did not go to Senate. This does hurt GOPA wing's future in US Politics.

That said, even if his image is tarnished after impeachment by House, chances are slim to none that Senate would remove "The most pro-Israel President in US history" considering that Senate is usually considered 'Israel country'.

[AngryCanadian]

They may drag the process but would be surprised if it did not go to Senate. This does hurt GOPA wing's future in US Politics.

That said, even if his image is tarnished after impeachment by House, chances are slim to none that Senate would remove "The most pro-Israel President in US history" considering that Senate is usually considered 'Israel country'.

This would hurt GOPA wing's future in US Politics? are you serious? this would hurt the democrats.

[enhanced_deficit]

This would hurt GOPA wing's future in US Politics? are you serious? this would hurt the democrats.

GOPA wing's top donors and various top leaders are democrats apparently; before he was kicked out of WH, conservatives risisng star Steven Bannon also used to refer to most influential WHite House advisors as Democarts, Jarvanka etc. allegedly.

[Swordsmyth]

Hubris – Nancy Pelosi Declares: “the senate rules are unfair” – “when rules become fair we will send articles”…

The entire House effort to impeach President Donald Trump has been a one-sided partisan effort; built upon a foundation of manipulation of process and dismissal of the minority rights throughout.

After the House voted along party lines, and in an act of stunning hubris, Speaker Pelosi now declares she will withhold the articles of impeachment until the Senate makes rules that she determines will be “fair” to the prosecution. [Video at 09:00 prompted]

Nancy Pelosi: "We have legislation approved…that will enable to decide how we send over the articles of impeachment."
"We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side…so far we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us." https://t.co/KV8jBJCHcL pic.twitter.com/LcgasQXGHv
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) December 19, 2019

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...send-articles/

[Swordsmyth]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.
She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
That is all.
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.
You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now.
Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”
They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.
Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.
All of that would be exposed as a lie.
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.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-constitution/

[acptulsa]

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.
Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.
A cunning Lawfare ploy.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place. By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘. The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.
It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.
As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.

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).


Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment case sits in limbo.
The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President.
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.

More at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com...s-from-senate/


This is not an impeachment.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.
She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
That is all.
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.
You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now.
Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”
They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.
Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.
All of that would be exposed as a lie.
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.


https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-constitution/

Did anyone notice these two articles completely contradict each other?

By the way, breitbart is right for once. The treehouse is full of bird $#@!.

[Anti Globalist]

The majority of the Senate doesn't even support impeaching Trump.

[TheCount]

So what? Have you heard what the Senate has said?

[Swordsmyth]

Mitch McConnell threatened on Thursday to cancel Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate if 'scared' Nancy Pelosi refuses to send him the formal articles of impeachment that Democrats passed Wednesday night.
The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader went to war over next steps in the impeachment process, with Pelosi slamming McConnell as a 'rogue leader'⁠—and he blasted her indictment of the president as 'slapdash' and 'unfair.'
The dispute exploded into the open the morning after Democrats voted to impeach Trump, with the president bragging he coulld prevaIl by 'default.'
'If the Do Nothing Democrats decide, in their great wisdom, not to show up, they would lose by Default!,' Trump argued on Twitter of his upcoming Senate trial, which is now in doubt.
Pelosi has to transmit the articles of impeachment and appoint 'managers' to prosecute the president. She offered no timeline, saying she wanted to see the Senate's plan for a 'fair trial,' effectively holding the articles over McConnell's and Trump's heads.
McConnell, who previously said he wanted to hold a trial in January, responded: 'It's beyond me how the Speaker and Democratic Leader in the Senate think withholding the articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage.'
'Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial. If she thinks her case is so weak she doesn't want to send it over, throw me into that briar patch.'


He and the president both blasted Pelosi for refusing to move to the next step, with Trump unleashing a storm of tweets and retweets and venting: 'PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT.'
McConnell also criticized Democrats on the Senate floor, accusing them of creating what he called an 'unfair, unfinished product'—Tcharges rump that stemmed from 'partisan rage.'
Calling Pelosi's work 'constitutionally incoherent,' he said impeaching a president on the basis of political disagreements would 'invite an endless parade of impeachable trials' in the future, making House leaders 'free to toss up a jump-ball every time they feel angry.'
'She's failed the country,' McConnell said.
'It was like the speaker called up Chairman [Jerrold] Nadler and ordered up "One impeachment, rushed delivery, please".'


Pelosi herself held a press conference after McConnell spoke and offered no hint on when she would move.
'Just to get this off the table right away, we impeached the president immediately and everybody was on to the next thing,' she said.
'The next thing will be when we see the process that is set forth in the Senate. Then we'll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward and who we would choose.'
And she grew testy as reporters pressed her for more details on when the two articles of impeachment will end up on McConnell's desk.
'I'm not going to answer anymore questions on this. Clearly you understand when we see what their process is we will know who and how many we want to send over, not until then. I'm not going to go there anymore,' Pelosi said.


In the Senate, McConnell declared that 'their slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the Civil War.'
Citing previous House votes that fell short of authorizing impeachment inquiries, he said Democrats had 'tried to impeach President Trump for being impolite to the press, for being mean to professional athletes, for changing President Obama's policy on transgender people in the military.'
'All of these things were high crimes and misdemeanors according to the Democrats,' he said.
McConnell cited Democrats' earlier pledges to impeach Trump as proof that Wednesday's vote 'was not some neutral judgment that Democrats came to with great reluctance. It was the predetermined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.'
House Democrats have begun pressing Pelosi to force the Senate to tailor the upcoming constitutional trial to their wishes—by refusing to send the articles of impeachment to McConnell until he agrees to their terms.


McConnell called her bluff, saying she's afraid to hand him the baton because she knows the articles are weak.
'Pelosi suggested that House Democrats may be too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate,' he will say, mocking her suggestion in a post-vote press conference that she'll hold the two articles over his head until he agrees to a 'fair' trial.

More at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-leverage.html

[kpitcher]

So what? Have you heard what the Senate has said?

I do like how so many in the senate will swear to be an impartial justice according to the constitution and yet have already tweeted they won't be. What happened to the days of at least appearing to follow the rules? That seems silly to reveal your intent to not follow an oath.

[Swordsmyth]

I do like how so many in the senate will swear to be an impartial justice according to the constitution and yet have already tweeted they won't be. What happened to the days of at least appearing to follow the rules?

The House destroyed them.
The only impartial justice possible is to totally reject this farce.

[specsaregood]

I'll just leave this here.

the woman has lost her marbles.

[dannno]

I'll just leave this here.

the woman has lost her marbles.

Looks like she's on a good one.

[TheTexan]

I'll just leave this here.

the woman has lost her marbles.

Looks like she's on a good one.

I think she's receiving a blowjob from someone hiding in the podium

[Schifference]

His high crimes must not be a pressing issue.

[dannno]

So what? Have you heard what the Senate has said?

Ya, the Senators are saying the same thing as Ron Paul. This is all a farce... It's complete bull$#@!, and you are either really dumb or a bull$#@! artist if you are promoting any of it.

[dannno]

I do like how so many in the senate will swear to be an impartial justice according to the constitution and yet have already tweeted they won't be. What happened to the days of at least appearing to follow the rules? That seems silly to reveal your intent to not follow an oath.

The Republicans are saying the same thing as Ron Paul, so I'm not sure what your point is.

This is all a complete farce, it's a coup...

Did you not see the video of Biden bragging about withholding $1 billion from Ukraine if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was looking into corruption and money laundering at his son's company Burisma?

If Trump knew about that, and didn't reach out to Ukraine to get help investigating, then I think we should have impeached him. Of course he should investigate corruption. That is the President's job. It's really obvious the Democrats are trying to hide their own crimes here, what else could possibly be going on??

I mean, Biden isn't even running against Trump yet. Biden is running against Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats. Trump did the Democrats a huge favor by exposing all this long before the primary election. What the $#@! else do you want?

[Danke]

Dems are afraid of witnesses called in the senate trial. So many will go down.

[Swordsmyth]

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

[TER]

Dems are afraid of witnesses called in the senate trial. So many will go down.

EXACTLY THIS. They never wanted it to go to trial because then many of them will be exposed. This is all a last ditch effort to tarnish Trump before November’s vote. They are panicking and acting rashly and with no direction or plan. ‘We are watching the systematic destruction of the old guard’. ‘Pain is coming’.

[fcreature]

EXACTLY THIS. They never wanted it to go to trial because then many of them will be exposed. This is all a last ditch effort to tarnish Trump before November’s vote. They are panicking and acting rashly and with no direction or plan. ‘We are watching the systematic destruction of the old guard’. ‘Pain is coming’.

Lindsey and Cocaine Mitch will never allow the witnesses POTUS asks for. Would take them down too. Unfortunately the most likely scenario is that this gets laughed out of the Senate.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

His high crimes must not be a pressing issue.

Only when its politically expedient

[Swordsmyth]

Lindsey and Cocaine Mitch will never allow the witnesses POTUS asks for. Would take them down too. Unfortunately the most likely scenario is that this gets laughed out of the Senate.

Justice will catch up with them and it will go harder if they don't cooperate.

[TER]

Lindsey and Cocaine Mitch will never allow the witnesses POTUS asks for. Would take them down too. Unfortunately the most likely scenario is that this gets laughed out of the Senate.

Justice will catch up with them and it will go harder if they don't cooperate.

Exactly. Whatever dirt the DS has on these clowns, Trump and his military intel already know. Their best chance is to play the role assigned to them. And in this instance, it is to goad the Dems into a senate trial. What makes a good movie? Good actors.

[oyarde]

So far , exactly as I expected.

[jmdrake]

I'll just leave this here.

the woman has lost her marbles.

Wait a minute. Was that reporter she was talking to named "Nancy" or did "Nancy" just get hella confused?

[jmdrake]

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.

[Anti Globalist]

I'll just leave this here.

the woman has lost her marbles.

She never had any marbles to begin with.

[acptulsa]

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.

Yes, he should. But impeachment is a distraction, that's one of the things they're trying to distract our attention away from, and the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans are working together to do it.

Therefore, he won't.