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

Why would it ever come up, given that his name wasn't mentioned or he wasn't on the call or listening to the call? Except for political contingencies and you know that and I know that. Pelosi tried to pull a Hitler, but unlike the German Corporal, she's too incompetent and too old of age. So instead, she burned the House to the ground.

In addition to needing Pelosi to recuse herself, I need the succession to be altered, so that the administration continues to be ran, by the administration or the pentagon. We elected this branch to term, so it must be served.

 

Again. Nancy's problems in performing a successful impeachment process is not Mitch McConnell's issue. She ran everything the way she wanted, and closed out the Articles when she was "done". The Articles of Impeachment are sealed.

She'll have to start over and impeach him again.

 

Follow along: Pelosi doesn't set the Senate hearing rules, just like Mitch didn't set the House impeachment rules.

If she didn't have enough evidence to make a strong bi-partisan case, she should never have called for the official impeachment floor vote.

The rules are NOT that Democrats can be partisan hacks, but Republicans have to play fair.

 

"Presented as sound"?

Of course they're going to claim that their case is sound.

 

How long has the party existed?

 

They have already indicated this is an option.

 

Nobody's talking about "playing fair". We're talking about: a key witness has information that's relevant for the upcoming trial and he's willing to testify. Do you, LoneStarGal, want to hear from this witness? Yes, you do, just like all of this. Do the Republicans want you to hear from this witness? No. And that should tell you everything, really.

We're going to hear from Bolton one way or another. Schiff is already talking about subpeoning him.

 

Too bad for them.

 

Such a sad time we live in when an entire political party is cheering the open (and hidden) corruption of this presidency.
What happened to finding out the truth and no man is above the law?

Guess y’all sold that with the rest of the morals when you elected trump*.

 

Stop making crap up!

No man being above the law ended at the Democrat's doorstep.

Why are you defending Biden? Schiff?

Schiff is a proven corrupt bastard. Where's the outrage?

 

I am not discussing Biden or Schiff — but both are likely correct.
This is about the president* and how his corruption is allowed unchecked — applauded even — it’s sad.

 

You're still making crap up.

 

You are being purposely ignorant.

 

No one testified to this.

For the rabidly hyper-partisan Democrats, sure.
Thinking people, not so much.

The -political- process of impeachment.
The rules are set by the relevant houses; their power to do so is exclusive and plenary.
If it weren't for the 2/3 vote required for removal, the trial could be decided with a coin toss or a poker hand.

It was - and the process is as I described.
Congress never took the subpoenas to court, and so the EP stands.
Thus, The Democrats impeached Trump for his legal exercise of executive privilege.

Surely,you meant to say that the other way around.

There's no constitutional mechanism for that, and there won't be until the constitution is amended.
Given the bigoted, hyper-partisan nature of the impeachment inquiry/investigation, there's no rational reason to expect the Republicans in the Senate to grant the Democrats much of anything in the trial.

 

Yes... and the best Democrats the could come up with is a non-existent abuse of power and the assertion that the legal exercise of executive privilege is an obstruction of Congress.
Damn! Forget impeachment -- HANG him!! NOW!!

 

No. Windows did. <CTRL>+F is the "Find" function. It did not find the terms you used in either article of Impeachment

When you believe you can support your assertion, let us know.
When you discover you cannot, you can answer my question.

What likely happened her is someone who knows a lot less than they think they do told you about this, and you bought it because you didn't know better.

 

It can be. And it is.
The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for impeaching Trump over his legal assertion of Executive Privilege - but they aren't capable of such things.

 

And once it becomes desperately apparent that the cause NOT sound, the only partisan votes will come from the Democrats.

 

If the Democrats have a solid case for impeachment, and all of that evidence is on the record already, why do they need to call witnesses?
Why should the Senate Republicans give the Democrats any more consideration than the Democrats gave the Republicans in house?

 

And so, rather than choosing to undertake the process necessary to compel the executive branch to answer their subpoenas, the Democrats simply declared the legal exercise of Executive Privilege is an impeachable offense.

 

As the Senate can change the rules any time it wants- as I said - it is correct.

 

They were ordered not to, or face retaliation?

 

She stands to benefit directly and personally from the outcome of the trial.
How do you not see this?

You should read more closely:

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[15] according to the law it is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action. However, while the law places the duty on the U.S. Attorney to impanel a grand jury for action, proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President[citation needed]. According to this theory, to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch.

And then:
Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive's Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive's claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These 'occasion for constitutional confrontation between the two branches' are likely to be avoided whenever possible.
United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692.[10]

Until Congress takes the executive branch to court and the court, after full due process, compels the executive branch to answer the subpoena, the executive branch has no legal requirement to do so. Thus, the exercise of executive privilege cannot be a Contempt of Congress.

 

If at first you can't impeach, impeach impeach again!

 

Demonstrate the "corruption" of the Trump administration.
Be sure to demonstrate how whatever actions you choose as your examples meet the legal definition of same.