Is the Senate required to wait for the physical articles of impeachment to move forward?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?

Serious question.

Serious answer:

Read the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously it does not directly say otherwise constitutional scholars wouldn't have differing opinions on it.

 

[BULLDOG]

I read about what the Constitution said about the impeachment process. It did not outline what happens if the articles of impeachment are not sent to the Senate. It did mention that two (?) managers from the House will assist in the Senate Trial. But what if they didn't send them or the articles.

The Constitution clearly states that the articles of impeachment are to be sent to the Senate. No question. There is a point where the Supreme Court can be involved, but it's murky.

I will try to find what I read so you can determine what it means in this situation.

Think of it this way. If they don’t send it to the Senate and yet declare him guilty without a trial that is against the law, just as it would be for anyone. It’s like he is indicted but then don’t allow him due process. That would be thrown out of any court of law here. At least that is my understanding.

Due process would include a fair evaluation of all evidence presented at trial. The right wing already announced their verdict before the trial even started, or any evidence has been presented. McConnell and republican senators are the ones denying due process.

Honey, are you saying the Dems haven’t been calling for impeachment before his desk chair got warm? Talk about due process.

Calling for his impeachment has nothing to do with due diligence in a trial.

 

[Richard-H]

Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?

Serious question.

Serious answer:

Read the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously it does not directly say otherwise constitutional scholars wouldn't have differing opinions on it.

If the Constitution does not say, then Constitutional Scholars have no valid opinion.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is this process specifically outlined or are these people just making it up as they go?

Serious question.

Serious answer:

Read the U.S. Constitution.

Obviously it does not directly say otherwise constitutional scholars wouldn't have differing opinions on it.

If the Constitution does not say, then Constitutional Scholars have no valid opinion.

Apparently you don't understand what the word OPINION means

 

[Maxdeath]

Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.

Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts

Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges

Funny that not only do you advocate for denying someone a speedy trial. A big part of the bill of rights which shows that things like the constitution only matter to crazy Dems when it fits their side.
You show that this was not about the so called pressure because of him using his office for all the reasons that Dems claimed. If Trump was such that he had to be impeached in such a speedy manner then delaying it shows they really were not serious.

Of course your opinion matters to no body.

Sometimes trials take a while....often years

In this case we have an Article of Impeachment on Obstructing Congress
Part of it is Trump going to court to prevent the release of documents and allowing his staff to testify.

Doesn’t it make sense to allow these cases to be resolved? THEN if Trump refuses to comply, the Senate will have no choice but to convict

Lol once again you are hanging onto hope even if it means showing that you care nothing about law or the country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once the President is impeached, the senate can – indeed, must- conduct a trial.

Thus, the only way the senate cannot conduct a trial here is if the President is NOT impeached.

As usual, the Democrats are talking out both sides of their buttocks.

 

[Maxdeath]

Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.

Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts

Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges

Funny that not only do you advocate for denying someone a speedy trial. A big part of the bill of rights which shows that things like the constitution only matter to crazy Dems when it fits their side.
You show that this was not about the so called pressure because of him using his office for all the reasons that Dems claimed. If Trump was such that he had to be impeached in such a speedy manner then delaying it shows they really were not serious.

Of course your opinion matters to no body.

Sometimes trials take a while....often years

In this case we have an Article of Impeachment on Obstructing Congress
Part of it is Trump going to court to prevent the release of documents and allowing his staff to testify.

Doesn’t it make sense to allow these cases to be resolved? THEN if Trump refuses to comply, the Senate will have no choice but to convict

Besides bright boy if they really wanted it to work its way through the court system as you are pretending they could have shut down the impeachment at any time. Since the went as far as drawing up articles and are not forwarding them to the senate it only looks as if they already know there is nothing there.

 

[rightwinger]

Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.

Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts

Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges

Funny that not only do you advocate for denying someone a speedy trial. A big part of the bill of rights which shows that things like the constitution only matter to crazy Dems when it fits their side.
You show that this was not about the so called pressure because of him using his office for all the reasons that Dems claimed. If Trump was such that he had to be impeached in such a speedy manner then delaying it shows they really were not serious.

Of course your opinion matters to no body.

Sometimes trials take a while....often years

In this case we have an Article of Impeachment on Obstructing Congress
Part of it is Trump going to court to prevent the release of documents and allowing his staff to testify.

Doesn’t it make sense to allow these cases to be resolved? THEN if Trump refuses to comply, the Senate will have no choice but to convict

Lol once again you are hanging onto hope even if it means showing that you care nothing about law or the country.

Impeachment IS the law of the country

This was a PERFECT Impeachment

 

[rightwinger]

Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.

Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts

Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges

Funny that not only do you advocate for denying someone a speedy trial. A big part of the bill of rights which shows that things like the constitution only matter to crazy Dems when it fits their side.
You show that this was not about the so called pressure because of him using his office for all the reasons that Dems claimed. If Trump was such that he had to be impeached in such a speedy manner then delaying it shows they really were not serious.

Of course your opinion matters to no body.

Sometimes trials take a while....often years

In this case we have an Article of Impeachment on Obstructing Congress
Part of it is Trump going to court to prevent the release of documents and allowing his staff to testify.

Doesn’t it make sense to allow these cases to be resolved? THEN if Trump refuses to comply, the Senate will have no choice but to convict

Besides bright boy if they really wanted it to work its way through the court system as you are pretending they could have shut down the impeachment at any time. Since the went as far as drawing up articles and are not forwarding them to the senate it only looks as if they already know there is nothing there.

Why?

They had enough evidence to impeach and they did. It was a perfect impeachment

But now they must deal with a Republican Senate who would allow Trump to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it

More evidence makes sense

 

[ABikerSailor]

You guys gotta quit listening to the GOP politicians on the impeachment process. They keep muddying the waters and combining everything together.

No. While there were some freshmen Representatives who called for impeachment shortly after he was sworn in, Pelosi knew that they didn't have anything (yet) that was impeachable. That is why she never brought it up before now.

The impeachment process was started when the whistleblower reported on the Ukraine phone call. Pelosi looked at the allegations and decided that now there was something that he could be impeached for.

The House then held their investigation. No, there was no trial because the House isn't responsible for that. After they had held their investigations, then Pelosi called for an impeachment vote and they voted to impeach him.

McConnell isn't helping matters by saying that he is fully coordinating with the WH, and will not be an impartial juror. Pelosi is now saying that until she can get assurances from the Senate that they will hold a fair trial, she will hold on to the articles of impeachment. If a juror in any court in the country told the judge that they were coordinating with the defendant and wouldn't be impartial, they would be thrown off the jury.

As far as the trial? When they figure out the rules and McConnell agrees to give a fair trial, then Pelosi will give them the articles, and the trial can begin.

No. Trump hasn't been denied due process because they haven't set the date for the trial yet. And, the only branch of government that can do the trial is the Senate. If you want to blame someone for holding up the process, blame McConnell, and his statement about not being willing to do his job.

 

[hadit]

Seems the Dems are having second thoughts. They are hoping to get the most impact they can out of the mess they have made.

Dems should hold the Articles of Impeachment until Trumps legal challenges of releasing evidence have cleared the courts

Should take about a year unless Trump drops his challenges

Funny that not only do you advocate for denying someone a speedy trial. A big part of the bill of rights which shows that things like the constitution only matter to crazy Dems when it fits their side.
You show that this was not about the so called pressure because of him using his office for all the reasons that Dems claimed. If Trump was such that he had to be impeached in such a speedy manner then delaying it shows they really were not serious.

Of course your opinion matters to no body.

Sometimes trials take a while....often years

In this case we have an Article of Impeachment on Obstructing Congress
Part of it is Trump going to court to prevent the release of documents and allowing his staff to testify.

Doesn’t it make sense to allow these cases to be resolved? THEN if Trump refuses to comply, the Senate will have no choice but to convict

Lol once again you are hanging onto hope even if it means showing that you care nothing about law or the country.

Impeachment IS the law of the country

This was a PERFECT Impeachment

And it will be a PERFECT acquittal.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You guys gotta quit listening to the GOP politicians on the impeachment process. They keep muddying the waters and combining everything together.

No. While there were some freshmen Representatives who called for impeachment shortly after he was sworn in, Pelosi knew that they didn't have anything (yet) that was impeachable. That is why she never brought it up before now.

Ah. The Mueller Report -was- a big, fat, juicy nothingburger. Just like we thought.

McConnell isn't helping matters by saying that he is fully coordinating with the WH, and will not be an impartial juror.

Political process - the Dems in the Senate aren't going to be impartial either, just like the Dems in the house weren't.

Pelosi is now saying that until she can get assurances from the Senate that they will hold a fair trial, she will hold on to the articles of impeachment.

I know! Amazingly stupid - right?

- If Trump HAS been impeached, the Senate -must- hold a trial ; the House has no power to impede this and has no constitutionally mandated role in the process.
- If Trump has NOT been impeached, then a whole bunch of people have been lying to themselves and others.

McConnell can set a trial date; if the Dems don't show up, he can hold a vote for dismissal.

 

[hadit]

You guys gotta quit listening to the GOP politicians on the impeachment process. They keep muddying the waters and combining everything together.

No. While there were some freshmen Representatives who called for impeachment shortly after he was sworn in, Pelosi knew that they didn't have anything (yet) that was impeachable. That is why she never brought it up before now.

The impeachment process was started when the whistleblower reported on the Ukraine phone call. Pelosi looked at the allegations and decided that now there was something that he could be impeached for.

The House then held their investigation. No, there was no trial because the House isn't responsible for that. After they had held their investigations, then Pelosi called for an impeachment vote and they voted to impeach him.

McConnell isn't helping matters by saying that he is fully coordinating with the WH, and will not be an impartial juror. Pelosi is now saying that until she can get assurances from the Senate that they will hold a fair trial, she will hold on to the articles of impeachment. If a juror in any court in the country told the judge that they were coordinating with the defendant and wouldn't be impartial, they would be thrown off the jury.

As far as the trial? When they figure out the rules and McConnell agrees to give a fair trial, then Pelosi will give them the articles, and the trial can begin.

No. Trump hasn't been denied due process because they haven't set the date for the trial yet. And, the only branch of government that can do the trial is the Senate. If you want to blame someone for holding up the process, blame McConnell, and his statement about not being willing to do his job.

It's not Pelosi's responsibility to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial, and the longer she holds back the articles, the more transparent her motives become, since they made such a big deal out of how immediately they had to do it.

 

[captkaos]

He said, the House has impeached. The Senate should just go ahead, set a trial date, and if no one shows
up to prosecute the case, the case is dismissed.

That's an interesting theory, however how do you set a trial date before an indictment is filed?

Yeah it's like a judge starting a trial even though no charges have been filed against you.

 

[eagle1462010]

I think the Senate can go forward with it..............If the House doesn't wanna play by the rules.........they can just take the articles of impeachment and begin it.

If the House prosecutors fail to show up..........then the case is dismissed and it's over.

Stop them from holding the dang thing forever for political BS............

Since the rules are not so clear.......why not give the Dems a taste of their own medicine.

 

[rightwinger]

You guys gotta quit listening to the GOP politicians on the impeachment process. They keep muddying the waters and combining everything together.

No. While there were some freshmen Representatives who called for impeachment shortly after he was sworn in, Pelosi knew that they didn't have anything (yet) that was impeachable. That is why she never brought it up before now.

The impeachment process was started when the whistleblower reported on the Ukraine phone call. Pelosi looked at the allegations and decided that now there was something that he could be impeached for.

The House then held their investigation. No, there was no trial because the House isn't responsible for that. After they had held their investigations, then Pelosi called for an impeachment vote and they voted to impeach him.

McConnell isn't helping matters by saying that he is fully coordinating with the WH, and will not be an impartial juror. Pelosi is now saying that until she can get assurances from the Senate that they will hold a fair trial, she will hold on to the articles of impeachment. If a juror in any court in the country told the judge that they were coordinating with the defendant and wouldn't be impartial, they would be thrown off the jury.

As far as the trial? When they figure out the rules and McConnell agrees to give a fair trial, then Pelosi will give them the articles, and the trial can begin.

No. Trump hasn't been denied due process because they haven't set the date for the trial yet. And, the only branch of government that can do the trial is the Senate. If you want to blame someone for holding up the process, blame McConnell, and his statement about not being willing to do his job.

It's not Pelosi's responsibility to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial, and the longer she holds back the articles, the more transparent her motives become, since they made such a big deal out of how immediately they had to do it.

The Senate would acquit Trump if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue
Pelosi knows that

Why not wait for the courts to rule on Trump releasing documents and allow staff testimony?

If Trump refuses, even the Senate must convict on obstruction of Congress

 

[The Original Tree]

They could have been subpoenaed in The House Inquiry I’d The Democrats really wanted to hear them testify.

The Senate in this process is a jury deliberation. No need to try the case all over again.

Not sure, but it seems oddly conspicuous not to allow the 4 folks who could each seemingly exonerate the President in full... to testify.

I understand he wants the Trial so that the partisan vote can happen and he can SAY that he was exonerated...but it's quite telling that he doesn't want to actually BE exonerated.

 

[G.T.]

They could have been subpoenaed in The House Inquiry I’d The Democrats really wanted to hear them testify.

The Senate in this process is a jury deliberation. No need to try the case all over again.

Not sure, but it seems oddly conspicuous not to allow the 4 folks who could each seemingly exonerate the President in full... to testify.

I understand he wants the Trial so that the partisan vote can happen and he can SAY that he was exonerated...but it's quite telling that he doesn't want to actually BE exonerated.

The were, dipstick

 

[The Original Tree]

Since The Democrats ended The House Inquiry all those Subpoenas that they refused to wait for arbitration in the courts to be decided are now invalid.

You guys gotta quit listening to the GOP politicians on the impeachment process. They keep muddying the waters and combining everything together.

No. While there were some freshmen Representatives who called for impeachment shortly after he was sworn in, Pelosi knew that they didn't have anything (yet) that was impeachable. That is why she never brought it up before now.

The impeachment process was started when the whistleblower reported on the Ukraine phone call. Pelosi looked at the allegations and decided that now there was something that he could be impeached for.

The House then held their investigation. No, there was no trial because the House isn't responsible for that. After they had held their investigations, then Pelosi called for an impeachment vote and they voted to impeach him.

McConnell isn't helping matters by saying that he is fully coordinating with the WH, and will not be an impartial juror. Pelosi is now saying that until she can get assurances from the Senate that they will hold a fair trial, she will hold on to the articles of impeachment. If a juror in any court in the country told the judge that they were coordinating with the defendant and wouldn't be impartial, they would be thrown off the jury.

As far as the trial? When they figure out the rules and McConnell agrees to give a fair trial, then Pelosi will give them the articles, and the trial can begin.

No. Trump hasn't been denied due process because they haven't set the date for the trial yet. And, the only branch of government that can do the trial is the Senate. If you want to blame someone for holding up the process, blame McConnell, and his statement about not being willing to do his job.

It's not Pelosi's responsibility to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial, and the longer she holds back the articles, the more transparent her motives become, since they made such a big deal out of how immediately they had to do it.

The Senate would acquit Trump if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue
Pelosi knows that

Why not wait for the courts to rule on Trump releasing documents and allow staff testimony?

If Trump refuses, even the Senate must convict on obstruction of Congress

 

[hadit]

You guys gotta quit listening to the GOP politicians on the impeachment process. They keep muddying the waters and combining everything together.

No. While there were some freshmen Representatives who called for impeachment shortly after he was sworn in, Pelosi knew that they didn't have anything (yet) that was impeachable. That is why she never brought it up before now.

The impeachment process was started when the whistleblower reported on the Ukraine phone call. Pelosi looked at the allegations and decided that now there was something that he could be impeached for.

The House then held their investigation. No, there was no trial because the House isn't responsible for that. After they had held their investigations, then Pelosi called for an impeachment vote and they voted to impeach him.

McConnell isn't helping matters by saying that he is fully coordinating with the WH, and will not be an impartial juror. Pelosi is now saying that until she can get assurances from the Senate that they will hold a fair trial, she will hold on to the articles of impeachment. If a juror in any court in the country told the judge that they were coordinating with the defendant and wouldn't be impartial, they would be thrown off the jury.

As far as the trial? When they figure out the rules and McConnell agrees to give a fair trial, then Pelosi will give them the articles, and the trial can begin.

No. Trump hasn't been denied due process because they haven't set the date for the trial yet. And, the only branch of government that can do the trial is the Senate. If you want to blame someone for holding up the process, blame McConnell, and his statement about not being willing to do his job.

It's not Pelosi's responsibility to dictate how the Senate conducts the trial, and the longer she holds back the articles, the more transparent her motives become, since they made such a big deal out of how immediately they had to do it.

The Senate would acquit Trump if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue
Pelosi knows that

Why not wait for the courts to rule on Trump releasing documents and allow staff testimony?

If Trump refuses, even the Senate must convict on obstruction of Congress

Good question, why didn't Schiff and crew wait until the courts ruled before the impeachment vote? The House is doing a classic hurry up and wait routine, and it's painfully obvious that politics is all that matters to the democrats in this, so no, no one takes them seriously.

If Trump refused after the courts ordered him to, then you might have a case. As of now, not so much.