McConnell: 'Impasse' over Trump impeachment trial, as Dems depart from precedent
Gregg ReBy Gregg Re | Fox News
FOX NEWS > https://www.foxnews.com/politi...trial-dems-cold-feet

.......
..."The back-and-forth rhetoric comes as Noah Feldman, the Harvard Law School professor who testified for Democrats at the impeachment inquiry earlier this month, wrote an explosive op-ed asserting that if Democrats do not forward the impeachment articles to the Senate as dictated by the Constitution, then Trump was never even impeached at all. The Constitution dictates that after impeachment by a majority in the House, a two-thirds vote is needed in the Senate to remove a president from office.

Feldman cautioned that impeachment "means the House sending its approved articles of impeachment to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the president is impeached."



Therefore, "if the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president," Feldman said." If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."....
.....MORE

I've been enjoying a little reading about Senator McConnell tonight. The gentalmans first name is Addison. A good name. Not only has he been key to affirming near all of President Trumps Judicial picks, he was responsible for hitting the brakes on all of obamas picks in his last 2 fake years in the White House. I frickin dig Mitch McConnell.. . He has been in Government a long time and knows his way around. Some point early on in President Trumps first term, perhaps his first year in Office, Senator McConnell acted in a advisory capacity to the President to help stave off some damn dirty democrat trick. I cant find the needle in the hay stack but his advice was heeded and of big help to the President. I bet Addison has some good stories to tell of his years of service. Rock on Senator McConnell.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
That doesn't change the fact he took a shot at a dead man who, again, was widely-admired in this state by people from both sides of the aisle. It was a tactical blunder, IMO.

Kinda paints a really clear picture just how moronic the voters of Michigan actually are. Dingle, his father, and his wife 'are' the problem with this country. I haven't an ounce of respect or admiration for any of them. And the 'swipe' Trump took at Dingle was pretty damn mild in the overall scheme of things. Unfortunately, in this world of retarded twitter monkeys, everything is a catastrophe. Trump's comment about Dingle will be long forgotten in a couple days.

Yeeeah. Maybe people in Michigan care about this way the pink pussy hat brigade rallied against “grab ‘em by the pussy.” The rest of of the country sees, and hears, and flat doesn’t give a fuck.

This man produces a lot of bluster, yes. But he also produces more, and better results than any President in so many of our lifetimes. So, apologies to the dearly departed, and widow Dingell, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, as we are so fondly reminded, and this country currently needs Donald J Trump as president more than any Michigander’s sentimentality about a deceased (seemingly) swamp critter.

I guess they all forgot about the shit Dingell hurled at Trump and his wife while he was still alive? Screw him, another example of why we need term limits

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I'm not going to believe for one minute that Pelosi and her cadre aren't 100% aware of every rule and law related to the impeachment process.

The Democrats have been on this path since Trump won the election. I have to think there is a larger strategy at work here. They've controlled every step. This is a series of chess moves not a bunch of blunders and mistakes out of overconfidence.

The question is, what is it. What are they really up to?

I have been thinking the same thing. As much as I have loved to think that the liberals in congress are a bunch of dumb asses, there are a lot of people behind the scenes who are strategists. What will hurt them the most to forward their agenda? I have to think that it’s the Supreme Court. Which boils down to RBG seat.

quote:

Originally posted by HighZonie:
For all SF members who have a Democrat Representative in Congress, I strongly recommend contacting that Congressman with a note of your thoughts on the impeachment process and their vote.

Contact your representative here. Put in your zip code at the search box and you will be directed to the Congressman's website where you can directly e-mail your thoughts.

CONTACT LINK > https://www.house.gov/represen...-your-representative

Click on your representative's name which is under his/her photo. You will go to the homepage.

It won't change anything, except perhaps the Congressman's realization that he or she will be totally screwed in the next election. This may precipitate a backing off from following Pelosi's lemmings further.

Already being done on my part. Thanks to the wonders of technology, I can email more than just my Congressional. But my Congressional is a freshman -- elected in 2019. So it gives me great pleasure to inform her that her first term in Congress is also going to be her last.

I believe the dims know exactly what will happen- if they forward the articles, they will immediately get shot down, and Trump is not impeached. If they delay, Trump isn’t truly impeached, but they get to play their gullible fool constituents by saying they impeached him as promised but the mean old republicans violated the constitution somehow. The supporters on the left are truly clueless on the constitution and due process. My wife argues with these morons on FB frequently. They think:

-Grounds existed in the first place to impeach Trump under the constitution.

-Trump could be removed from office after the impeachment hearing was complete.

-That Pence could immediately be impeached as well.

Once again, the demoRATS KNEW they had nothing but are going through the process in an attempt to smear Trump within the last year of the run-up to his inevitable re-election. It is poorly acted Kabuki theatre and nothing more

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:
At last night's rally in Michigan, President Trump made one of his cringe-worthy comments about the late John Dingell, who was a Michigan congressman for a record 59 years! Dingell passed away in 2015. Trump joked that Dingell might be looking down right now, or "I don't know, maybe he's looking up" to roars of laughter from the crowd.

This is why it's important to know your audience. To people outside the state of Michigan it wouldn't be apparent, but John Dingell was widely admired in this state--even by those on the other side of the aisle. If John Dingell still held that seat I suspect he would have opposed that entire kangaroo impeachment process. He was a man of integrity. Trump could've done worse by taking a shot at Gov. William Milliken, but not by much

Debbie Dingell, OTOH... Let us just say she's not a pimple on her departed husband's ass.

You've got to be kidding! Absolutely Ridiculous Statement! Please...

Ronna McDaniel, RNC chairwoman, discusses the "Democrats for Trump" campaign and reveals the big dollars the RNC has raised since impeachment began

FOX NEWS > https://video.foxnews.com/v/6117310367001/

FUNDRAISING REPORTED:

$ 20 MILLION + IN NOVEMBER

$ 10 MILLION + IN LAST 48 HOURS

I think these games Evil Pelosi is playing with sending the impeachment over to the Senate has got to do with RBG next year.

The Dems realize RBG is living on borrowed time and very well may croak sometime soon. With holding up impeachment, they can screech "A President under impeachment CANNOT nominate a new SCOTUS justice!" and try to hold up the whole process.

They're TERRIFIED of the idea that Trump may be able to remake the SC for 30 or 40 years to come and not in their favor and they need to stop that by hook or by crook.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The Dems realize RBG is living on borrowed time and very well may croak sometime soon. With holding up impeachment, they can screech "A President under impeachment CANNOT nominate a new SCOTUS justice!" and try to hold up the whole process.

Except there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a President's powers during an impeachment process.

So - RBG kicks it, they send the articles of impeachment over, and McConnell can simply say -"put those to the side, we have an important Supreme Court confirmation hearing to do first"

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The Dems realize RBG is living on borrowed time and very well may croak sometime soon. With holding up impeachment, they can screech "A President under impeachment CANNOT nominate a new SCOTUS justice!" and try to hold up the whole process.

So???

Fuck them.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
The Dems realize RBG is living on borrowed time and very well may croak sometime soon. With holding up impeachment, they can screech "A President under impeachment CANNOT nominate a new SCOTUS justice!" and try to hold up the whole process.

Except there is nothing in the Constitution limiting a President's powers during an impeachment process.

So - RBG kicks it, they send the articles of impeachment over, and McConnell can simply say -"put those to the side, we have an important Supreme Court confirmation hearing to do first"

Exactly. This has nothing to do with RBG. This is the dems, and particularly Pelosi, making this crap up as they go.

I believe a great deal of the shenangans the leftest engage in are encouraged by the ignorance of the masses on such matters.

But they are finding out the the "rednecks in flyover country" are a hell of a lot more savvy than the "blue blood brats" in the Ivy League Towers of Babble learning centers.

The possible future SC nominations are just one of the many reasons this whole circus called impeachment is happening. But I think the top reason is a real fear some of the occupants of the swamp have of actually being outed and being charged with something. We can all dream. They know if Trump were removed that Pence won’t do anything.

The demoncrats don’t defecate without looking at polls. They know they’ve stepped in it or they would be full speed ahead to the Senate and we all will have a front row seat to watch their shit show go up in flames.

No more excrement references in this post, I promise.

quote:

Originally posted by HighZonie:
Therefore, "if the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president," Feldman said." If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all."....
.....MORE

December 20, 2019

Has Nancy Pelosi punked her own impeachment?

It's starting to look like the House vote to impeach President Trump was the impeachment that wasn't.

That's the word from a lot of legal scholars, including Noah Feldman, who was one of the three leftist professors who spoke before the House Judiciary committee, arguing for impeaching Trump. shortly before the Democrats' deed was done.

In a Bloomberg column, Feldman wrote:

Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

...and...

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

Feldman's a bigwig in his own Harvard Law circles and Democrats certainly take his word for it on the importance of impeaching Trump. But he's far from the only one reading the law to say that as it's being excuted now, with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declaring she might not send the articles of impeachment for the Senate to vote on until she can dictate terms, she's invalidating her own impeachment.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, a conservative, pretty much says the same thing. In a National Review column, he wrote:

Pelosi and Democratic leadership have convinced themselves there may be advantage in delaying the formal, ministerial delivery of the impeachment articles — as if Mitch McConnell were in as much a hurry to receive them as Democrats were to conjure them up. The thought is that this latest strategic petulance might pressure Senator McConnell into promising a full-blown trial, including summoning as witnesses top aides of the president whom the House didn’t bother to summon because tangling over privilege issues would have slowed up the works.

So it’s not a joke, but I still have to laugh. When I was a prosecutor negotiating plea deals, I always found the most pathetic defense lawyers were the ones who acted like they were playing with the House money when, in stark reality, it was they who needed something from me. Now here’s Pelosi trying to play hard to get with McConnell who, I imagine, couldn’t care less how long Democrats want to dither.

...and...

In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known, but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken. A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial court, usually months later when sentence is imposed.

No one, of course, has to explain this to McConnell.

As Joel B. Pollak notes in a Breitbart column: "You're in ... Mitch's court, now."

He also throws in this:

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

He also notes that even if Pelosi doesn't ship the thing over the Senate can vote to acquit if it wants, so it's a lose-lose all around for her.

So all that hullabaloo that came out of her as the rushed impeachment vote came about might just have been for nothing. The funereal back suit, the hushed intonations about prayers for the country, the declarations that democracy is at stake, the appeal to "history," the invocations from the Founding Fathers, the orders to Democrats to quit giggling and popping champaign corks and pretend for a few minutes that the whole thing was solemn, humorless affair...was for nothing.

Joke's on Nancy, because if she refuses to ship the thing to the Senate, then the whole impeachment was a joke. And now it looks like she's boxed herself into a corner. Either she sends that thing to the Senate on Mitch McConnell's terms or ... there was no impeachment. Talk about hoisted on her own petard...

Which should make President Trump, who's still fuming about the whole thing, a very happy man indeed. By all means, Nance, keep our president happy and refuse to ship that thing that is in any case going to go down like the Hindenburg, to the Senate. Makes no difference to us, you clowns, we're still planning on voting for him, but if it makes him happy, we're happy.

Comeuppance happens, every time the left overreaches.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.co...p.html#ixzz68fOvfS9i

This message has been edited. Last edited by: parabellum,

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Go to the 11 minute mark and watch her sputter on the one question she would would answer about impeachment.

I skipped to 11:00 and finished it out from there. She's totally unhinged. She couldn't answer the question, then pretended like she had actually said she wouldn't answer anymore questions on impeachment and then wanted to shame the reporters with that bluster about "does anyone want to talk [...] important issues that relate to the economic vitality of our communities?" I actually felt compelled to shout at the screen. "Like you care, lady?" The rest of the question period just spiked my blood pressure.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Exactly. This has nothing to do with RBG. This is the dems, and particularly Pelosi, making this crap up as they go.

It's all a steaming load of horseshit and they know it. It's why they don't want to take critical questions from reporters, and it's why they don't want to it at all look like the Senate has a say and that they somehow still have some power over the Senate once the House's job is done. Problem is, we have a bicameral Congress for just this reason.

I have a question:

Could they possibly withhold the articles in hope of retaking the Senate in 2020? If Trump is reelected (when he is), if they retake the Senate, they could just use the articles to remove him, right?

They might even use it as a rallying cry: "Hey, we can't keep him from getting reelected, but we can remove him! Give us 51 Senators!"
They might even shift strategy to focus on Senate races when they realize that the Presidency is out of reach, with their lousy candidates.

Is this possible?

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

This was a Great Quote from the article.

quote:

Originally posted by RNshooter:
I have a question:

Could they possibly withhold the articles in hope of retaking the Senate in 2020? If Trump is reelected (when he is), if they retake the Senate, they could just use the articles to remove him, right?

They might even use it as a rallying cry: "Hey, we can't keep him from getting reelected, but we can remove him! Give us 51 Senators!"
They might even shift strategy to focus on Senate races when they realize that the Presidency is out of reach, with their lousy candidates.

Is this possible?

Bruce

No. All actions of one Congress not finalized end upon conclusion of that Congress. New Articles of Impeachment would have to be voted upon in the new House of Reps and then the new Senate would have the trial.