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

Wrong approach. You cannot just walk blindly by without accepting at the same time that your Constitution is stuffed in this area. An oath is an oath, and MUST be sacrosanct especially when it is a requirement of the Constitution. You the People must MAKE that oath worth the Bible it is taken under.

 

She can't... If she fails to deliver the Articles, McConnell can vote to dismiss, and any evidence and testimony becomes part of a closed adjudicated case protected by double jeopardy precedence.

If she starts over, she will have to find a new accusation different from what has already been brought forth.

 

You clearly do not understand American politics.

 

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal charges.
The fact Pelosi "Can't" doesn't mean she won't.

It appears Pelosi knows she lost and will send the charges to the Senate in the next couple days - with no concession from McConnell - so the point will soon be moot.

 

She has as much say in the Senate trial as Mitch did in the House, zero. The Constitution gives the Senate the SOLE power to conduct an impeachment trial. Nancy is obstructing them from doing that.

 

Of course she is.
For some reason, she thinks there's political advantage in this.
Senate Dems, in growing numbers, appear to disagree.

 

When you're tardy for weeks they expel you.

 

While that applies in federal court, I'm not quite sure it applies in Congress. Or as quite a few have opined: "Impeachment is a political process". Our framers didn't want that, didn't endorse that but that's the mindset of legal scholars and lawyers alike.

 

When the house and the senate, per the constitution, get to make the rules for impeachment and trial, it cannot be anything other than a political process.
Thus, that's -exactly- what the framers intended.

 

Typical response from someone whose lack of facts is caught out.

 

I strongly disagree. The House/Senate basically had been given the roles of prosecution and courthouse, but if you didn't want to give it an iota of legality, then you wouldn't invite the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to preside.

If the Framers wanted a pure political process, the Chief Justice wouldn't be invited, or even requirements(high crimes and misdemeanors) for an impeachment.

 

Fact remains:
Both houses have the constitutional authority to write their rules as they see fit.
This is, necessarily, is a political process.

 

Both chambers have a function within the impeachment process. But the idea wasn't for political considerations. I mean, there's literally quotes out there about the "inflamed passions", etc. The bodies are simply the venues of the activity.

 

Both houses are political bodies - everything they do is inherently political.

 

You are wrong...

The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has to certify the results. It is the same as an other adjudication. The verdict results in either an acquittal or a conviction. Double Jeopardy applies.

 

The Chief Justice has whatever power and role that the rules of the trial allow him, and according to those rules, can be overridden by a simple majority vote of the senate.
There is no requirement anywhere that he "certify" any thing.

Double jeopardy only applies to criminal trials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy

 

Articles are expected to be sent to the Senate next week. Pelosi must have been getting enough pressure from Democrats to concede.

“I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to her colleagues Friday morning.

 

1-4. I gave you valid examples to consider. You give me factual empty emotional nonsense that demonstrates your utter contempt for the facts.
5. The FBI & other intelligence agencies that investigated Trump & his campaign for Russian collusion, didn't fabricate anything. They were doing their job. If Trump is innocent, neither he nor you have anything to fear. People generally get upset with investigations when they have something to hide. I support the 2016-19 investigations on this issue, & support their continuation.
6. I'm just voicing what I've observed in Trump's behaviors myself. I'm not concerned whether you see what I see or not. You are a Trumpster, & are pre-programmed to ignore evidence & disregard & disrespect truth. You have to live with that. I don't.
7. I'm not interested in whether Trump is anti-religious or not. He has the right to be religious or not to be. I don't care. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince anyone on Trump's religiosity. But I DO care that he's racist, simply because that affects the lives of millions of Americans, as well as most potential immigrants.
8. Since I regard myself as a leftist & liberal, I find that the current majority of members in the Democratic Party are still centrists & moderate conservatives. I'm personally farther left, & feel outnumbered. So, I disagree with your Republican perspective on the state of the Democratic Party. I am personally in the same "Socialist" vein as Bernie Sanders, & I agree with almost everything he advocates for America. I also like Eliz Warren. But I am not aware of even one single "communist" in my local area, nor do I know of anyone who claims to be a communist inside the Democratic Party. I am certainly not one myself, no do I feel comfortable with that philosophy. Republicans like to throw that charge around about Democrats because it makes them (the Republicans) feel good. But like so many Republican beliefs today, it's false.
9. Liberals have not come close to altering the Democratic Party to the same degree conservative wingnuts have altered the Republican Party over the past decade.

 

This is a great post for proving the dems point. You are repeating a lie. The right had every opportunity to call any witness they wanted, and in fact they not only didn't call any witness, they activly kept them from testifying. The right in this country, and you via this last post, are regurgitating flat out falsehoods forwarded by the likes of Matt Goetz claiming that they weren't allowed to even be in the hearings "in the dungeons of the house".

The entire republican strategy has been to deny everyone from testifying, to then claim the left twas running a "sham impeachment". They did it in the house hearings, and now in the senate. The entirety of their defense has been "the left has no case", but leaving out that they have no case because we would not let them have acess to anything or anyone needed to prove it.

But the truth will come out at some point. If the dems win the presidency in 2 years I fully expect that others will testify.

If they didnt do anything, then why keep Bolton from testifying ? Why hide all the records from the state department ? Why was the presidnts person lawyer in a foreign country doing state business ?

 

Enough with the fairness crap, we all watched the House impeachment. I can't believe the Dem leaders have the gall to make the case they are trying to make but judging from left reactions here I guess it isn't all that hard to see, or for them to do.

 

Why is the right uninterested in truth?

 

Funny.

 

The right knows that the entire impeachment nonsense is just huge temper tantrum from Democrat leadership. Nothing Trump has done rises to the serious level of impeachment, much less removal from office.

So the right just wants to get this sad, embarrassing chapter in America over with as soon as possible and focus on the election which happens in less than 300 days.

You want to take months and months and months interviewing every human who ever talked to Trump? Do it in the House where they apparently have nothing more worthwhile to work toward. The rest of America has bigger and better things to do.

 

The house has sent over 400 bills to the senate that have refused to even hear them, many of them passed with bipartisan support. The senate is the one that seems to be unable to do anything because push agenda.

 

Fact check. One or two Republican votes on Nancy's pet Democrat bills, does not make a bill "bipartisan". Nancy's is a big old exaggerator and political gamer. In other words, she's lying.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/pelosis-bipartisanship-boast/