The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 84,733 views

Will the current Articles of Impeachment ever be sent from the House to the Senate?

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
I just saw on TV the Majority Whip of the House say he does not personally think the impeachment case should go to the Senate. People, this thing may be over.
 
Dotini
I just saw on TV the Majority Whip of the House say he does not personally think the impeachment case should go to the Senate. People, this thing may be over.
Click to expand...
You post wholesale copypasta of articles regarding gaseous emissions on Mars that the government doesn't want us to know about, or whatever tripe, and now it's just "I saw on TV". Until you can cite an actual source, I call bullpucky.

ROAD_DOGG33J
Who is the independent representative in the House?
Click to expand...
There are three at present. Two hold representative roles only and are not entitled to participate in House votes; the other is Justin Amash of Michigan's 3rd congressional district.
 
This from Noah Feldman, one of the impeachment constitutional egghead witnesses.
Bloomberg.com
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.
Click to expand...

If the house is waiting for the senate to set the rules, but the senate is waiting for the articles before it sets the rules, then where exactly are we?
 
Chrunch Houston
This from Noah Feldman, one of the impeachment constitutional egghead witnesses.

"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."

If the house is waiting for the senate to set the rules, but the senate is waiting for the articles before it sets the rules, then where exactly are we?
Click to expand...

No, he's been impeached, the third President to be so. That action of bringing charges is undertaken and completed by the house. That impeachment leads to a trial once the papers are received by the Senate, regardless of the outcome of that he remains impeached.

Let's say you were charged with DUI - the fact always remains that you were charged with it regardless of whether you were found guilty, not guilty, or even if no trial was ever held. This is the same thing but with the word "impeached" replacing "charged".
 
TenEightyOne
No, he's been impeached, the third President to be so. That action of bringing charges is undertaken and completed by the house. That impeachment leads to a trial once the papers are received by the Senate, regardless of the outcome of that he remains impeached.

Let's say you were charged with DUI - the fact always remains that you were charged with it regardless of whether you were found guilty, not guilty, or even if no trial was ever held. This is the same thing but with the word "impeached" replacing "charged".
Click to expand...
Very interesting stuff going on here. Perhaps this is what we'll all be talking about until the 2nd week of January. Or maybe not.

Mr Ten suggests US political impeachment is like a traffic court proceeding. Mr Ten says charges have been brought - but to whom? Not the court. In a court proceeding if the investigating prosecutor (due to a weak case?) doesn't bring the charges to the court, the judge will dismiss the case and no crime appears on the citizen's record.

This impeachment thing is maybe different at least in some respects. As of now, the process can continue if the articles are brought to the Senate for trial. But the Senate can change its rules and vote to acquit if the charges do not arrive in a reasonable time. Or they could dismiss the case without a trial or a verdict. Another possibility is that the House can bring new impeachment hearings and new articles. Perhaps they could impeach the president monthly between now and November? That could be fun.

Another interesting question is exactly why the articles were not brought to the Senate. Perhaps the House wants to avoid having Hunter and Joe Biden, Adam Schiff et al, called as witnesses? Perhaps Senators running for President don't want to interrupt their campaign schedules by attending a Senate trial? Perhaps the House felt it needed time to buttress its case with more evidence? But the Constitution is clear that the trial and verdict part of the process is in the control of the Senate.

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate
According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote.

By
Noah Feldman
December 19, 2019, 1:35 PM PST
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.

Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would deviate from the Constitution’s clear expectation.

For the House to vote “to impeach” without ever sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial would also deviate from the constitutional protocol. It would mean that the president had not genuinely been impeached under the Constitution; and it would also deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
Click to expand...
 
The Constitution also states the House has the sole power to impeach. Whether it's brought to the Senate that could be another thing. One could also argue it's meaningless whether the articles are submitted as the outcome has been predetermined.
 
ROAD_DOGG33J
The Constitution also states the House has the sole power to impeach. Whether it's brought to the Senate that could be another thing. One could also argue it's meaningless whether the articles are submitted as the outcome has been predetermined.
Click to expand...
Yes. Or you could say the House has ejaculated but the smut has not yet escaped the lambskin. Our Virgin has been penetrated but not yet impregnated. The ****ing you get for the ****ing you got. Everyone involved is well and truly ****ed.
 
Dotini
Mr Ten suggests US political impeachment is like a traffic court proceeding. Mr Ten says charges have been brought - but to whom? Not the court. In a court proceeding if the investigating prosecutor (due to a weak case?) doesn't bring the charges to the court, the judge will dismiss the case and no crime appears on the citizen's record.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is not proof of crime, as with the traffic court analogy a charge has been brought. No record of a crime exists until the crime is proven in court - and that's the case with Trump's offences. What doesn't change is that he has been impeached, the articles of impeachment have been passed.

The Constitution makes it clear that impeachment is the sole responsibility of the House of Representatives. Whether an official is subsequently tried against that impeachment is immaterial, regardless of the "new" interpretations of the Constitution being offered by some of the press. The President has been impeached regardless of whether or not the Senate ultimately chooses to remove him from office.

Dotini
Yes. Or you could say the House has ejaculated but the smut has not yet escaped the lambskin
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the stain is always there. Ask Clinton.
 
TenEightyOne
Let's say you were charged with DUI - the fact always remains that you were charged with it regardless of whether you were found guilty, not guilty, or even if no trial was ever held. This is the same thing but with the word "impeached" replacing "charged".
Click to expand...

So even though Trump was caught redhanded, witnesses have testified that he indeed ask a foreign power for a quid pro quo for assistance investigating a political rival. He refuses to comply to a single subpoena and not deliver one witness or document for his defense, the senate will vote that he is innocent anyway?

I was against impeachment from the beginning, but what the republican senators are going to do and not take this impeachment seriously is against US law and US constitution. Basically if a sitting president has the majority in the house. He can basically do whatever he wants. This is a fatal flaw in the system.
 
PocketZeven
So even though Trump was caught redhanded, witnesses have testified that he indeed ask a foreign power for a quid pro quo for assistance investigating a political rival. He refuses to comply to a single subpoena and not deliver one witness or document for his defense, the senate will vote that he is innocent anyway?

I was against impeachment from the beginning, but what the republican senators are going to do and not take this impeachment seriously is against US law and US constitution. Basically if a sitting president has the majority in the house. He can basically do whatever he wants. This is a fatal flaw in the system.
Click to expand...
I mean, he really wasnt lying when he said he could kill someone in the middle of the street and wouldn't lose any support. I am glad Congress impeached. I am vexed that the Senate whole sale said that evidence be damned, that's their guy and they aren't following through on their constitutional obligations so as to protect their supreme leader.
 
Rallywagon
I mean, he really wasnt lying when he said he could kill someone in the middle of the street and wouldn't lose any support. I am glad Congress impeached. I am vexed that the Senate whole sale said that evidence be damned, that's their guy and they aren't following through on their constitutional obligations so as to protect their supreme leader.
Click to expand...

I assumed that the senate would be obligated to put on a neutral "hat" and swear an oath like jurors in court. But they simply state they are coordinating everything with the Trump administration. Doesnt that violate any laws?
 
PocketZeven
I assumed that the senate would be obligated to put on a neutral "hat" and swear an oath like jurors in court. But they simply state they are coordinating everything with the Trump administration. Doesnt that violate any laws?
Click to expand...

I mean technically it's perjury to be under oath and then not honor that oath. It would be a bit hard to prove though since Mitchy boy has come out and said he won't be impartial.

Also, violating the Constitution is breaking the law. But as I've said time and time again, politicians don't give a damn about the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers were around today, I have to assume they'd be mortified at what the government's become and how what they fought for has been wasted.
 
TenEightyOne
Impeachment is not proof of crime, as with the traffic court analogy a charge has been brought. No record of a crime exists until the crime is proven in court - and that's the case with Trump's offences. What doesn't change is that he has been impeached, the articles of impeachment have been passed.

The Constitution makes it clear that impeachment is the sole responsibility of the House of Representatives. Whether an official is subsequently tried against that impeachment is immaterial, regardless of the "new" interpretations of the Constitution being offered by some of the press. The President has been impeached regardless of whether or not the Senate ultimately chooses to remove him from office.
Click to expand...
You mean...even if a Trumpkin troll, in an attempt to "own the libs" and delight fellow Trumpkins, changes a message board thread title to support the notion that he hasn't been impeached?
 
When and if the House sends the articles, I'll change the thread title back to original. If they never send the articles, and the constitutional scholars agree, I'll drop the question mark.

The whole partisan political affair has devolved into Kabuki theater, and never really had anything to do with law or the constitution. But that doesn't mean we can't have some fun with it.
 
Dotini
When and if the House sends the articles, I'll change the thread title back to original. If they never send the articles, and the constitutional scholars agree, I'll drop the question mark.

The whole partisan political affair has devolved into Kabuki theater, and never really had anything to do with law or the constitution. But that doesn't mean we can't have some fun with it.
Click to expand...

Yes that is true, but the republican's senators stance on the matter is very worrying....
 
Dotini
I just saw on TV the Majority Whip of the House say he does not personally think the impeachment case should go to the Senate. People, this thing may be over.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're getting the implication of "over" here.

If "over" means the Republican party in the Senate never gets to exonerate their President, then yes it's over. Until the House hands over the Articles - ahem until the Senate walks back their public statement of not holding a fair trial - then they are powerless to do anything about this impeachment.

the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented.
Click to expand...
...but apparently no constitutional duty to hold a fair trial given that mutiple Republicans have said publicly they will violate their oath and not hold a fair trial.
 
Keef
I don't think you're getting the implication of "over" here.

If "over" means the Republican party in the Senate never gets to exonerate their President, then yes it's over. Until the House hands over the Articles - ahem until the Senate walks back their public statement of not holding a fair trial - then they are powerless to do anything about this impeachment.


...but apparently no constitutional duty to hold a fair trial given that mutiple Republicans have said publicly they will violate their oath and not hold a fair trial.
Click to expand...

So basically the President AND the Senate are above the law?
 
Keef
I'd pull my string for her to be president.

For real though, she should just quit. By not voting she sabotaged herself. She's basically dead to most Democrats now.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't get the "I can't vote to impeach although I do think he committed crimes" thing. If you think he committed crimes, you vote impeach. Pretty simple concept. I like Tulsi fwiw but this was obviously a show for attention/"look how edgy I am".
 

Similar threads

Earth
Things You Want To See In GT6 Besides Vehicles and Tracks
167 168 169
Replies
5K
Views
354K
GTV0819
GTV0819

Latest Posts

Back