Senate may change the rules to counter Pelosis childish games.

[M14 Shooter]

What time limit, if any, does the Constitution set for transmitting Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?
Kind of like never holding a hearing on a Presidents SC nominee?

If Trump has been impeached, the Senate can hold a trial any time it wants.
If the senate cannot hold a Trial, then Trump has not been impeached.
Pick one.

Trumpybear has been Impeached....

... and thus, the Senate can hold the trial any time it wants, regardless of what Pelosi does.
Thank you

 

[JLW]

The OP has it wrong. It is McConnell playing a childish game. McConnell has a constitutional duty to hold an impartial Senate hearing and has indicated he plans no such trial. McConnell is making a mockery of the Senate proceeding. Pelosi is right to do what she is doing. If he has decided to renege on his constitutional duty, Pelosi is in her right to force the turtle to do his job.

 

[candycorn]

Recent polls indicate waning support for what Pelosi is doing, especially in swing states and districts. They are in effect kicking themselves in the ass, so to me I don't see why the Senate just let's 'em keep on kicking. To a point anyway, I think the Senate Repubs would get a boost in popularity if they took action to end this farce. It really isn't right to change the Clinton rules for Trump, fuck that.

Agreed.


All I heard when they were picking a new speaker after the midterms was what a brilliant tactician Pelosi was and that they couldn’t risk losing her “gift” by not anointing her as Speaker. I think the DEMs are having some buyers remorse about right now.

From 12/5/16

As I've said 3 or 4 times in the past, the Pelosi brand of liberalism is the last thing the Democrats should be highlighting.

Not only have the DEMs not seen any of these alleged brilliant moves...they have suffered from the pull to the left.

sad

Whats your type of liberalism, CC?

Holding big business accountable. Infrastructure spending. Expanding healthcare. Not concerning ourselves very much with restroom equality, getting rid of drinking straws, or worrying about reparations to descendants of African slaves.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Recent polls indicate waning support for what Pelosi is doing, especially in swing states and districts. They are in effect kicking themselves in the ass, so to me I don't see why the Senate just let's 'em keep on kicking. To a point anyway, I think the Senate Repubs would get a boost in popularity if they took action to end this farce. It really isn't right to change the Clinton rules for Trump, fuck that.

Agreed.


All I heard when they were picking a new speaker after the midterms was what a brilliant tactician Pelosi was and that they couldn’t risk losing her “gift” by not anointing her as Speaker. I think the DEMs are having some buyers remorse about right now.

From 12/5/16

As I've said 3 or 4 times in the past, the Pelosi brand of liberalism is the last thing the Democrats should be highlighting.

Not only have the DEMs not seen any of these alleged brilliant moves...they have suffered from the pull to the left.

sad

Whats your type of liberalism, CC?

Holding big business accountable. Infrastructure spending. Expanding healthcare. Not concerning ourselves very much with restroom equality, getting rid of drinking straws, or worrying about reparations to descendants of African slaves.

Thanks CC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP has it wrong. It is McConnell playing a childish game. McConnell has a constitutional duty to hold an impartial Senate hearing....

Pelosi threw any requirement for "impartiality" out the window.

 

[DOTR]

The senate moving forward on removing the President without the articles of impeachment?

Sure...why not. Lol

Other than Senate rules, where is it written the Senate must wait for the articles to be delivered to them?

Actually this is a strange one but Chief Justice John Roberts could take it upon himself to conduct the trial...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

This means the Chief Justice could call what ever witness he likes and can continue to do so unless the Senate decide to close it down. The law overrides any Senate rules...

Honestly I think a proper trial is what we need and less of the grandstanding from both sides... All the witnesses, if Trump's team want to call Hunter they just have to show relevance to the case, but Roberts agrees so be it... Same rule for evidence and Rudy, Soland.....

Full Transparency with a proper Judge... what's wrong with that...

The law really doesnt require any of that. There is no appeal from the Senate. The Supreme court has already spoken on this and they have spoken unequivalently...whatever the Senate says is the law and there can never be an appeal. In the case below the appellant had been subject to trial by a sub committee of the Senate and he objected to the form. The Supreme Court said "too bad".

Walter L. NIXON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
"Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected...The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the common sense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone.

Leave it to the Democrats to explode centuries of tradition and an inheritance of the notion of due process and fairness. But in the same case the Justices explained the danger of what the House Democrats are doing in a prescient way AND, as a check on such abuse as Pelosi is perpetuating, reiterated that the Senate has the final say no matter what the House does.

"Justiciability is also refuted by (1) the lack of finality inherent in exposing the country's political life particularly if the President were impeached—to months, or perhaps years, of chaos during judicial review of Senate impeachment proceedings, or during any retrial that a differently constituted Senate might conduct if its first judgment of conviction were invalidated..."

Yep. Just what Pelosi is trying to do...run out the clock. But she cant. A differently constituted Senate, that is one that has been through an intervening election, has no articles to try. Its that simple.

" judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature...Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the "important constitutional check" placed on the Judiciary by the Framers"

How can a judiciary, which may be subject to impeachment itself, have any say in the process? Once again..the Senate is the final word. However they elect to perform their duty of removal or aquittal is the business of the Senate and no other.
Hello Mitch McConnell. Its your call.

 

[BlindBoo]

What time limit, if any, does the Constitution set for transmitting Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?
Kind of like never holding a hearing on a Presidents SC nominee?

If Trump has been impeached, the Senate can hold a trial any time it wants.
If the senate cannot hold a Trial, then Trump has not been impeached.
Pick one.

Trumpybear has been Impeached....

... and thus, the Senate can hold the trial any time it wants, regardless of what Pelosi does.
Thank you

I don't think they could have a trial.

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell...... said on Friday the Senate cannot proceed with a trial under its rules until it receives them."

Senate Republican eyes rule change to kick start Trump impeachment trial

They would need to change the Senate rules.

 

[Nostra]

Why not just ignore and violate the rules like Nazi Pelousy, Schifferbrains, and Nadless did in the House?

Oh? What rules did they violate?

You really are clueless.

Translation: none.

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

You really are clueless.

 

[Nostra]

The OP has it wrong. It is McConnell playing a childish game. McConnell has a constitutional duty to hold an impartial Senate hearing and has indicated he plans no such trial. McConnell is making a mockery of the Senate proceeding. Pelosi is right to do what she is doing. If he has decided to renege on his constitutional duty, Pelosi is in her right to force the turtle to do his job.

How will Nazi Pelousy 'force" Mitch to do anything?

And Dimwingers colluded and coordinated with Clinton during his trial, so why are you now butthurt over Reps doing the same?

 

[CowboyTed]

The senate moving forward on removing the President without the articles of impeachment?

Sure...why not. Lol

Other than Senate rules, where is it written the Senate must wait for the articles to be delivered to them?

Actually this is a strange one but Chief Justice John Roberts could take it upon himself to conduct the trial...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

This means the Chief Justice could call what ever witness he likes and can continue to do so unless the Senate decide to close it down. The law overrides any Senate rules...

Honestly I think a proper trial is what we need and less of the grandstanding from both sides... All the witnesses, if Trump's team want to call Hunter they just have to show relevance to the case, but Roberts agrees so be it... Same rule for evidence and Rudy, Soland.....

Full Transparency with a proper Judge... what's wrong with that...

He possibly could but the Senate can overrule any decisions he makes.

That is a Senate rule not a law... So it could be said the Senate are giving themselves powers which is not given to them under law...

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Generally like in the Clinton case there was an agreement to how the trial is going to be run from both sides but this time Mitch has said he will do what the White House wants and negated his oath as being as impartial juror. Chief Justice could leverage his power too and hold them to the constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What time limit, if any, does the Constitution set for transmitting Articles of Impeachment to the Senate?
Kind of like never holding a hearing on a Presidents SC nominee?

If Trump has been impeached, the Senate can hold a trial any time it wants.
If the senate cannot hold a Trial, then Trump has not been impeached.
Pick one.

Trumpybear has been Impeached....

... and thus, the Senate can hold the trial any time it wants, regardless of what Pelosi does.
Thank you

I don't think they could have a trial.
"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell...... said on Friday the Senate cannot proceed with a trial under its rules until it receives them."

If Trump has been impeached, the Senate can hold a trial any time it wants - and only need change its rules to do so.
Regardless of what Pelosi does.

 

[Nostra]

The senate moving forward on removing the President without the articles of impeachment?

Sure...why not. Lol

Other than Senate rules, where is it written the Senate must wait for the articles to be delivered to them?

Actually this is a strange one but Chief Justice John Roberts could take it upon himself to conduct the trial...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

This means the Chief Justice could call what ever witness he likes and can continue to do so unless the Senate decide to close it down. The law overrides any Senate rules...

Honestly I think a proper trial is what we need and less of the grandstanding from both sides... All the witnesses, if Trump's team want to call Hunter they just have to show relevance to the case, but Roberts agrees so be it... Same rule for evidence and Rudy, Soland.....

Full Transparency with a proper Judge... what's wrong with that...

He possibly could but the Senate can overrule any decisions he makes.

That is a Senate rule not a law... So it could be said the Senate are giving themselves powers which is not given to them under law...

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Generally like in the Clinton case there was an agreement to how the trial is going to be run from both sides but this time Mitch has said he will do what the White House wants and negated his oath as being as impartial juror. Chief Justice could leverage his power too and hold them to the constitution.

US Contitution: The Senate shall have the SOLE POWER to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

No trial, no impeachment.

 

[CowboyTed]

This means the Chief Justice could call what ever witness he likes and can continue to do so unless the Senate decide to close it down. The law overrides any Senate rules...

The senate, with a simple majority, can overrule the presiding judge.

Who came up with that rule because the law doesn’t say that...

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Sole power. The Senate makes the rules - and one of those rules is the presiding judge can be overruled by a simple majority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This means the Chief Justice could call what ever witness he likes and can continue to do so unless the Senate decide to close it down. The law overrides any Senate rules...

The senate, with a simple majority, can overrule the presiding judge.

Who came up with that rule because the law doesn’t say that...

The senate, pursuant to its sole power to try impeachments and its plenary power to set the rules for proceedings.

 

[jwoodie]

The Senate should hold a trial on the articles of impeachment and vote them down, thereby precluding the House from resurrecting them after Trump's reelection.

 

[CowboyTed]

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Sole power. The Senate makes the rules - and one of those rules is the presiding judge can be overruled by a simple majority.

Actually there is a contradiction...

The Constitution said the Senate has sole power and then says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial... That doesn't make sense...

The is a number of interpretations... But it is very plausible to say it is a trial and trials have evidence and witnesses which are relevant to the charges... The Chief Justice could upset at seeing a kangaroo trial which he is presiding and could object and get legal... Senate rules are just that rukes and the Judge has a duty too..

 

[BlindBoo]

The senate moving forward on removing the President without the articles of impeachment?

Sure...why not. Lol

Other than Senate rules, where is it written the Senate must wait for the articles to be delivered to them?

Actually this is a strange one but Chief Justice John Roberts could take it upon himself to conduct the trial...

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

This means the Chief Justice could call what ever witness he likes and can continue to do so unless the Senate decide to close it down. The law overrides any Senate rules...

Honestly I think a proper trial is what we need and less of the grandstanding from both sides... All the witnesses, if Trump's team want to call Hunter they just have to show relevance to the case, but Roberts agrees so be it... Same rule for evidence and Rudy, Soland.....

Full Transparency with a proper Judge... what's wrong with that...

He possibly could but the Senate can overrule any decisions he makes.

That is a Senate rule not a law... So it could be said the Senate are giving themselves powers which is not given to them under law...

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Generally like in the Clinton case there was an agreement to how the trial is going to be run from both sides but this time Mitch has said he will do what the White House wants and negated his oath as being as impartial juror. Chief Justice could leverage his power too and hold them to the constitution.

US Contitution: The Senate shall have the SOLE POWER to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS.

No trial, no impeachment.

They cannot un-impeach him. He has been impeached. Furthermore under current rules they can't have a trial with out the House transmitting the articles. If that's what they want to do they have to change the rules of the Senate.

 

[BlindBoo]

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Sole power. The Senate makes the rules - and one of those rules is the presiding judge can be overruled by a simple majority.

Actually there is a contradiction...

The Constitution said the Senate has sole power and then says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial... That doesn't make sense...

The is a number of interpretations... But it is very plausible to say it is a trial and trials have evidence and witnesses which are relevant to the charges... The Chief Justice could upset at seeing a kangaroo trial which he is presiding and could object and get legal... Senate rules are just that rukes and the Judge has a duty too..

It's not a legal trial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is a tricky one but constitution seems to give the Justice power over the trial rather than the Senate.

Sole power. The Senate makes the rules - and one of those rules is the presiding judge can be overruled by a simple majority.

Actually there is a contradiction...
The Constitution said the Senate has sole power and then says the Chief Justice will preside over the trial... That doesn't make sense...

There's no contradiction at all - like in any trial, the judge is limited to the rules and procedures of the trial.
Those rules and procedures are set by... the Senate.