Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[jc456]

Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.

What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

here's a thread in here discussing it.

If Trump is impeached, why can’t the Senate trial start now?

 

[kyzr]

Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.

What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

From your link:
"The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.
But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem. Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial."

 

[kyzr]

Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.

What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

 

[playtime]

that's bullshit. there was no threat & the fact was - biden was part of an anti corruption team within our government & other nations in a wide partnership in overseeing ukraine purge their corrupted people.

you failed.

Oh fk off. Tell me what the prosecutor was working on? He said Berisma.

Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Courtney Subramanian
USA TODAY

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.
Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.
Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."
What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

Why was it relevant for the us? What happened afterwards? Who got prosecuted?

ukraine is the largest land mass nation on earth & is relevant because putin wants it back in the fold along with the other countries that split off after the USSR dissolved. you think that if the USSR regained it's power that would be good for us? for europe?

And that has what to do with the impeachment articles being given to the senate?

you asked why is it relevant for the us? i gave you the larger picture, dummy.

 

[playtime]

There is no impeachment until the Senate receives the articles.

lol... you keep going with that.

I will. A Constitutional professor that Democrats called as a witness said it. Dumb ass.

lol...

ya, you keep on sticking with that.

Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

 

[playtime]

I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up

NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>
Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?
Post to that (the topic), or get out of the thread.

And I said she wouldn’t because there’s no crime in it. Abuse of power isn’t a crime and obstruction of Congress isn’t correct. It’s what I wrote. Now the reason we got to the transcript is that’s what the entire impeachment was about! What the fk is wrong with you?

Nothing. Now let's talk about just about every other poster in this thread .

The topic is the title, and the heart of the matter is (as I have repeated), the politics of sending to the Senate or not.

As there no intention of impeachment, but this is just an assinine means of tarnishing Trump, it's not necessary to talk about the transcript, or anything having to do with impeachment.

The Crux of all this is WHO gains from the blabbering going to the Senate, and who loses ?

Answer: Democrats lose, Republicans gain. This is why it will likely go nowhere, and a whole new impeachment masquerade will ensue, with new charges being concocted.

This will continue right up to the election. The Democrats have no issues to run on, so they rely on tarnishing Trump.

the intention passed the house. donny has been impeached & pelosi will not hang onto them thar articles indefinitely. learn to accept it b4 y'all float down denial river for everrrrrrr.....

 

[playtime]

that's true. but what are the (R)s afraid of? lol... don't answer that - it's painfully obvious.

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.

In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center


EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

you're welcome.

So why couldn't he be called to a closed door session and compelled to reveal who divulged the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader? I mean, the House democrats certainly had no problem with closed door testimony. The Senate could do the same. Of course, they would have to get the articles first, which is an unknown as Pelosi is playing political games with them.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

 

[Faun]

Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.

What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

 

[hadit]

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.

In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center


EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

you're welcome.

So why couldn't he be called to a closed door session and compelled to reveal who divulged the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader? I mean, the House democrats certainly had no problem with closed door testimony. The Senate could do the same. Of course, they would have to get the articles first, which is an unknown as Pelosi is playing political games with them.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

And he would not be revealed in a closed door testimony. You know, the very thing that the House democrats were very fond of doing. It's a very valid question that thus far has been studiously ignored by the usual suspects, who divulged the contents of a private phone call between the president and a foreign leader, were they authorized to first have, second to disclose that information, was the WB authorized to receive that information and to whom did he pass it? Yet, we're not supposed to even wonder about that? Heck, since he's so heroic and all, grant him immunity and force him to spill. The American people and the president have the right to know who is doing this.

 

[Nostra]

No trial in the Senate, no impeachment.

 

[jc456]

I answered a poster. The transcript was what this all was about. Shut up

NO, it (ie. the thread) is NOT about the transcript. It is about the question asked in the title >>
Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?
Post to that (the topic), or get out of the thread.

And I said she wouldn’t because there’s no crime in it. Abuse of power isn’t a crime and obstruction of Congress isn’t correct. It’s what I wrote. Now the reason we got to the transcript is that’s what the entire impeachment was about! What the fk is wrong with you?

Nothing. Now let's talk about just about every other poster in this thread .

The topic is the title, and the heart of the matter is (as I have repeated), the politics of sending to the Senate or not.

As there no intention of impeachment, but this is just an assinine means of tarnishing Trump, it's not necessary to talk about the transcript, or anything having to do with impeachment.

The Crux of all this is WHO gains from the blabbering going to the Senate, and who loses ?

Answer: Democrats lose, Republicans gain. This is why it will likely go nowhere, and a whole new impeachment masquerade will ensue, with new charges being concocted.

This will continue right up to the election. The Democrats have no issues to run on, so they rely on tarnishing Trump.

the intention passed the house. donny has been impeached & pelosi will not hang onto them thar articles indefinitely. learn to accept it b4 y'all float down denial river for everrrrrrr.....

Not impeached until the articles are handed to the senate, it’s a process dumb ass. You are an uniformed fk

 

[jc456]

Afraid? That's your interpretation, and a rather weak tactic at that. We could just as easily ask:

Why is Schiff afraid to have the WB testify? What does he fear will come out?
Why is Pelosi afraid to send over the articles of impeachment? Why is she afraid to lose control over the situation?

And so on. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as there are many possible and valid other options.

lol... the protocols under the WB act is designed to keep identities secret for the very reason you want him/her exposed.

the WB's complaints were deemed credible by the the ICAG & the accounts of what happened has been verified by the names the WB gave.

if the WB were exposed, what do you think would happen to anybody wanting to come fwd in the future.

nancy pelosi isn't afraid - both turtleboy & ms lindsey overplayed their hand & publicly announced that they will gladly violate the special oath they are required to take to bring a kangaroo court to session.

1. I've asked numerous times of numerous posters to cite the specific language in the law that prevents a WB from being called to testify, and to date NONE have produced anything. Will you be the first to do so?

2. The credibility of the complaint is irrelevant to the identity of the person who divulged what he thought were the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader.

3. The law protects a WB from retaliation on the job. It does not, as in this case, protect those who divulge information they should not. That's why we need to know who heard a private call between the president and a foreign leader and thought they were justified in divulging that information.

4. Assigning fear as a motive is useless, as just demonstrated.

Under the ICWPA, an “urgent concern” is defined as:

1. A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law orExecutive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern.

ICPWA also includes a provision protecting the whistleblower’s identity from disclosure, a protection also found in the Inspector General Act of 1978. However, aside from that provision, ICPWA does not offer whistleblowers protections from retaliation and does not provide mechanisms for challenging retaliation.

In response to this weakness, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included the first general provisions for protecting intelligence community whistleblowers, encouraging lawful disclosures to the OIGIC. However, the majority of its provisions are general and subject to multiple interpretations.
The Intelligence Community Whistleblowers: What You Need to Know - National Whistleblower Center


EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS '• ' SEC. 7

(b) The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf

Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints

The law required that the Complainant be “[a]n employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community.” 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(A). The ICIG confirmed the Complainant was such an employee, detailee, or contractor.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

you're welcome.

So why couldn't he be called to a closed door session and compelled to reveal who divulged the contents of a private call between the president and a foreign leader? I mean, the House democrats certainly had no problem with closed door testimony. The Senate could do the same. Of course, they would have to get the articles first, which is an unknown as Pelosi is playing political games with them.

because.... now understand this..................




the WB act specifically states that he/she stays anonymous unless he/she wants to come fwd or it impedes the investigation. he/she doesn't want to be known & how can you blame them since the (R) are out for blood & will protect donny at all costs? & whatever the WB stated to the ICIG, everything has been verified & investigations have not been impeded. & as for other 'closed' door testimony............ nobody that testified 'blew the whistle', so they didn't need to keep their identity secret from retaliation.

what? no thanx for the credible info nobody else got showing you that WB protocol gives the WB a lawful right not to be revealed?

Oh shut up

 

[Faun]

Stupid in stereo...

No trial in the Senate, no impeachment.

Not impeached until the articles are handed to the senate, it’s a process dumb ass. You are an uniformed fk

 

[hadit]

Nancy has no clue what to do, either way the GOP wins.
1. If she sends the articles to the senate they acquit Trump, and the democrats look like partisan hacks
2. If she doesn't send the articles, Trump is not impeached, and the senate can make a rule that they are void if not forwarded within 48 hours, as an example. Then the next GOP House can repeal the Articles so they are voided.

What can Nancy do? She pulled the pin and now has no clue how to get rid of the grenade, she looks like the incompetent fool she is.

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

In which case the * goes away and no one can say Impeached Trump any more.

 

[Faun]

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

In which case the * goes away and no one can say Impeached Trump any more.

LOL

Then it's: Donald Trump**

 

[Nostra]

well actually, if she doesn't send the articles to the senate, the next congress doesn't have to do a thing, they are voided automatically.It isn't considered unfinished business. It was passed by the new congress, and as such dissolve.

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

In which case the * goes away and no one can say Impeached Trump any more.

“The Senate shall try ALL impeachments”

No trial, no impeachment.

 

[jc456]

OK, I heard that opinion, but Larry Tribe said that Trump is impeached if she sends the articles to the senate or not.
I'm not sure who is right, Tribe or Dershowitz?
Alan Dershowitz rebuts Laurence Tribe: 'Unconstitutional' for Pelosi to delay Senate trial on impeachment

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

In which case the * goes away and no one can say Impeached Trump any more.

“The Senate shall try ALL impeachments”

No trial, no impeachment.

Badda boom

 

[Faun]

Nazi Pelousy did in the House. In fact, she is currently violating House rules by sitting on impeachment.

Still running away from quoting the House rule she's violating....?

 

[Nostra]

Those are two different subjects. Dershowitz covers both.

He states holding back the articles of impeachment to gain leverage over the Senate is unconstitutional.

He also points out Impeached Trump is impeached regardless.

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

In which case the * goes away and no one can say Impeached Trump any more.

“The Senate shall try ALL impeachments”

No trial, no impeachment.

Badda boom

Pretty simple, really.

But the lefty simpletons on the board can’t comprehend it.

 

[jc456]

1. Holding back the Articles HOW LONG becomes unconstitutional?
Mitch should use a cattle prod and put a senate rule on the delay and limit it to a few days.

2. If the articles are never sent they expire at the end of the House term, correct?
If they don't expire, couldn't the next GOP congress just vote to repeal the articles?
PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?

I doubt McConnell can set a timeframe on the House since the House has sole power of impeachment and there are no timeframes specified in the Constitution. And if McConnell's goal is to simply dismiss the trial, he can bring that to a vote anyway whenever the Senate trial does begin.

And no, articles of impeachment do not expire at the end of the Congressional session. They carry over to the next session. It sounds plausible that under that scenario, the next House could vote to repeal the articles.

In which case the * goes away and no one can say Impeached Trump any more.

“The Senate shall try ALL impeachments”

No trial, no impeachment.

Badda boom

Pretty simple, really.

But the lefty simpletons on the board can’t comprehend it.

Better yet, it’s the rule of law. It’s just more the leftists don’t know our law