GOP Senator Puts Nancy Pelosi on Notice; No Articles by Monday, He Will Introduce Measure to Dismiss

The President had a responsibility to notify Congress, who had appropriated the aid in a bill approved by the President, as to his intention to withhold the aid and explain why. What specifically had changed between the time he signed the bill and the time he decided to withhold the aid? He didn't do that, thus creating a strong probability that he violated both statute law (Impoundment Control Act) and Constitutional law (Congress holds the power of the "pursestrings").
If the President believes he acted legally, then he should encourage those direct witnesses to his decisions regarding the issue to testify in the Senate trial, instead of prohibiting such testimony.

 

Perhaps your confusion arises from failing to distinguish between impeachment and trial.

The house impeachment inquiry is like a grand jury. As with a grand jury, it's not necessary (and certainly not required) for a prosecutor to make their case in full - the goal is to establish if there are sufficient grounds to indict (impeach) and proceed to trail.

Additional evidence and witnesses can be (and typically are) introduced at trial - where the goal is to secure a conviction/acquittal.

To deny this opportunity means, essentially, denying a bona fide trial.

 

Did the Democrats include this in their articles of impeachment?
Why not?

Ah - the old Soviet "He hasn't proven himself ionnocent so he must be guilty" argument.
Burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

As soon as Nancy figures out that Mitch has determined the rules and has enough votes, maybe she'll submit the articles and we can be done with this embarrassing chapter from a Democratic House.

Trump will be acquitted.

Then Nance/Schiff/Nadler can continue on to Peach Mint Trump for some other "High Crime or Misdemeanor" like misspelling too many words on Twitter....or something.

We certainly can't have Nancy leaving a legacy of being the Speaker who bridged the divide, put petty partisanship aside, and worked on compromise legislation for the good of the country. That would be awful. She'll be remembered as the Constitutional wrecking ball in terms of how impeachments are run and as the Speaker who ripped the already-torn fabric of American politics into shreds. Things will never be the same.

 

Can't say definitely that they did, because I haven't yet read the 600 page back-up to the abuse of power and obstruction of Congress articles of impeachment. But, I would think so and that could be brought up in the Senate trial. The Soviet "show trials" almost always ended in the defendant being executed or shipped to Siberia for a length stay. The worse that can happen to Trump is to be shipped back to the Trump Tower in NYC or to Mar-a-Lago in Florida (now that it is his official residence) - i.e. kicked out of office and the White House. The impeachment process, including the Senate "trial," is a political process primarily for political crimes, such as attacks on Constitutional institutions, such as Congress. Charges MAY include violations of statute law, but not necessarily. IF the charges DO include such violations, then the President may be indicted and tried in the criminal justice system for those violations and, if found guilty, be punished accordingly.

 

Hahaha...only if he's not punished for his violations of both statute and constitutional law.

 

Can you show me one Dem Senator who's said that they will be impartial? Exactly. I agree with McConnell on the premise of what he said. No one is deluded here.

And frankly because of the openly televised hearings, and the spectacle therein(none of such elements would be in a grand jury), this case has already been poisoned and prejudiced to the point of no rehabilitation.

So yes, there were many, many problems with the way Adam Schiff conducted his 'house intelligence' hearings. Democrats don't have the moral fiber to complain about how McConnell wishes to proceed now.

From an independent perspective, I would be in favor of impeaching Trump if it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did this. And for that, I do need these witnesses. However, there was nothing precluding the House from enforcing the subpoenas. The speediness of the Kupperman dismissal proved that.

It also proved that Nancy Pelosi lied again(just like she lied in March). I have no interest in supporting a habitual liar, who also targeted VP Mike Pence, as she's third in line to the Presidency.

 

Pull it up.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786579846/read-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump
Key <CTRL>+F
Type "Impoundment Control Act"
Hit enter.
No results.
Type "Impoundment"
No results.

Why?

 

For a man who has not been charged with a crime, I'd say Trump has been punished every single day by media and Democrats for the offense of being elected President. The inability of the establishment Dem political elites to honor the choice of the people ought to concern everyone, regardless of party.

 

Alas, far too few of our leftists don't know this and that's because they mostly allow Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to do all of their thinking for them. One wonders what these SJWs actually did learn in college; because it certainly wasn't what the older generations learned.

 

That's fine. There is more then enough indirect evidence to arrive at the same conclusion.

?? I said they were. I also said that their bias lines up with the facts and so, their bias becomes immaterial.

And again, direct evidence isn't necessary. Not sure why you and others are constantly harping on this particular point?

No it isn't. Direct evidence isn't the minimum standard.

I said it's funny how your ok with not having a legal process in place to validate the power of Executive Privilege in the case of subordinates, but not ok with the lack of any established legal process for impeachment, with your view on each one somehow landing in favor of the Reps.

Except that the fact that the parties involved also write the rules means that their views are suspect, and therefore an independent view must be superimposed to establish independent order.

 

People are either being misled, or playing dumb, if they don't realize that it was Nancy's job to call all the witnesses and subpoena all the records they wanted before they took the impeachment vote.

Now Schumer is screaming "This is not a fair trial without witnesses and documents!"

Yeah....well. Blame Nancy for her sloppy rush job. McConnell is going to try the Articles as they are written.

 

Its happening.

 

It's sort of sad really. The DNC and the MSM through both Obama and Hillary tried and failed to rig the 2016 election even with the bulk of the media outlets carrying their water and their candidate for them. Now they have tried to rig an impeachment when they are the majority in the House . . . and are failing at that as well. P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c.

 

Prosecutors don't call witnesses in order to fish for evidence. They already know what their witnesses will say.

 

The Constitution does not grant the Senate the power to cancel an impeachment. It states that should the House pass it, the Senate conducts the trial. So the Senate needs to conduct the trial.

 

There is so much evidence they dropped their accusations as articles of impeachment. Very weak tea.

 

For the predisposed, sure.

There are no "facts" here, only presumptions and inferences.
Biases are an inherent part of presumptions and inferences.

Because it cannot be said enough that the Democrats impeached trump with no direct evidence that he did what he was accused of.

There -is- a legal process for this.
Congress subpoenas. The executive branch refuses to answer. Congress goes to court. A court directs the executive to answer the subpoena. The executive appeals (repeat as needed). A court -finally- directs the executive to answer the subpoena.
In this, we are in step 2.
Absent the process playing out in full, there can be no obstruction of congress because the executive has the right to EP.
In Article II, the house Impeached trump for exercising executive privileged.

...unless you're talking about Democrats writing rules for an impeachment inquiry/investigation, of course...

Not in an impeachment. The establishment of rules and procedures are, per the constitution, wholly and in full, the purview of the respective houses.
That's why it is a political process, and that's why your analogy fails.

 

The senate can dismiss the charges of impeachment, with a simple majority vote, as per the senate rules.

 

What did the Republicans win?
Oh yeah, an impeachment.

 

Yes, they do, and they will as soon as Nancy submits the articles. The Senate is ready to move forward.

If she doesn't file paperwork, the Senate can add a rule to dismiss unsubmitted articles for lack of prosecution.

 

The 10th amendment would apply here. Powers not granted to the Presidency or to Congress, would be up to the States or the people.
Since the constitution doesn't explicitly state that the Senate cannot dismiss the charges, there's nothing against it.

That's the beauty of the Constitution, it either is, or it isn't. It's not a 'living document' as I learned in HS.

 

Democrats are taking a victory dance for the impeachment "win". Senate will "win" acquittal. We'll see how everything works out in November.

 

An "impeachment" in the manner of the House Speaker, was the same as an indictment: A ham sandwich. And it really lowered the bar for impeachment, moving forward.

 

Most Republicans in Washington seem to agree that the impeachment trial has to start in order for there to be a motion to dismiss...which could happen.

The Senate Resolution submitted yesterday by Hawley would add a 25-day rule that Articles have to be delivered to the Senate in a timely manner, and if they are not, then the Senate can dismiss.

Either way....the trial can move forward with or without Nancy. McConnell is being very generous to give Nancy time....for now.