Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[Faun]

The Constitution trumps House rules, Simpleton.

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, the Constitution gave the power to the House to create their own rules...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

House rule don’t trump the Constitution, Simpleton.

LOLOLOL

You're not quoting the Constitution, dumbfuck. You're citing yourself.

Here's what the Constitution says on the matter...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

 

[hadit]

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PrawfsBlawg: Can An Impeachment Be Repealed?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**

Add a third one for first president to have been impeached, re-elected, then un-impeached. Strange games these democrats play, will probably backfire.

 

[Hum Dinger]

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The power of Impeachment has NOTHING to do with the Senate.

 

[protectionist]

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

You don't make the rules. The framers of the Constitution made the rules.

Trump has been impeached.

But impeachment no longer means what it did. Now, after Democrats have made a mockery of it, what significance it has, rises to about the level of a 4th grade spitball.

 

[Circe]

Articles of impeachment are not a "bill." They don't go to the president's desk for approval and they don't expire at the end of a Congressional session. Articles of impeachment don't just "die."

Well, they could. Why not? They get to decide procedural matters like this. Remember this is only the THIRD impeachment. They are making this up as they go along. The Dems have a real problem with the polls all turning against their impeachment thingy. They need to back out; Pelosi never wanted to impeach to begin with, but to stay leader she had to run around and get in front of her rebellious and shocked and angry younger Dems. Too bad for her --- she was right in the first place.

Odds are she'll come across with the charges next week, but it would be interesting if she sat on it.

 

[hadit]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

 

[Nostra]

The Constitution trumps House rules, Simpleton.

LOLOLOL

Dumbfuck, the Constitution gave the power to the House to create their own rules...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

Are you ever not a dumbfuck?

Ever???

House rule don’t trump the Constitution, Simpleton.

LOLOLOL

You're not quoting the Constitution, dumbfuck. You're citing yourself.

Here's what the Constitution says on the matter...

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

And Nazi hasn't completed the impeachment yet.

You lose again.

 

[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?

Hey, good job on finding the info. Seriously, that's the first time anyone has even tried.

 

[Faun]

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The power of Impeachment has NOTHING to do with the Senate.

The rubes don't get that.

 

[Hum Dinger]

If McConnell refuses an impartial trial, Pelosi should impeach him too!

Fantasize much? She doesn't have the power to do it, and there's no way to get an impartial trial with the democrats voting as we know they will.

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The house has the power to impeach McConnell. They've already impeached a senator once, they can do it again.

 

[Hum Dinger]

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The power of Impeachment has NOTHING to do with the Senate.

The rubes don't get that.

They get it. They just like to practice their fine art of BULLSHIT.

 

[hadit]

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The power of Impeachment has NOTHING to do with the Senate.

The rubes don't get that.

Trump is impeached, no doubt. Once he's acquitted, he'll be more dangerous than ever before because he has nothing left to fear. The democrats will have thrown their biggest turd at him and he's still standing, very rich, very powerful, very ticked off and very petty. Not a good time to be a democrat voting for impeachment.

 

[Faun]

Articles of impeachment are not a "bill." They don't go to the president's desk for approval and they don't expire at the end of a Congressional session. Articles of impeachment don't just "die."

Well, they could. Why not? They get to decide procedural matters like this. Remember this is only the THIRD impeachment. They are making this up as they go along. The Dems have a real problem with the polls all turning against their impeachment thingy. They need to back out; Pelosi never wanted to impeach to begin with, but to stay leader she had to run around and get in front of her rebellious and shocked and angry younger Dems. Too bad for her --- she was right in the first place.

Odds are she'll come across with the charges next week, but it would be interesting if she sat on it.

She can sit on them as long as she likes. Though she can only sit on them as long as she's Speaker.

 

[protectionist]

No trial in the Senate, no impeachment.

Yeah, I think so, too. Bills commonly die in committee or in the president's "pocket" (the pocket veto) and that's what this looks like to me. I think the Dems don't want a Senate trial and are just letting it die a death by neglect. We know the public has become more and more annoyed by this and anti-Dem --- they know it too and I think they are trying to back out.

Boy, could I be wrong. I hope that's what happens, though.

Not that it would matter much -- a unanimous acquit vote by Senate Republicans would take care of the problem nicely.

Articles of impeachment are not a "bill." They don't go to the president's desk for approval and they don't expire at the end of a Congressional session. Articles of impeachment don't just "die."

Yet more evidence that you zombie cultists know nothing about the Constitution.

Democrats have CHANGED the Constitution, and meaning of impeachment. It's now a joke

 

[Hum Dinger]

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The power of Impeachment has NOTHING to do with the Senate.

The rubes don't get that.

Trump is impeached, no doubt. Once he's acquitted, he'll be more dangerous than ever before because he has nothing left to fear. The democrats will have thrown their biggest turd at him and he's still standing, very rich, very powerful, very ticked off and very petty. Not a good time to be a democrat voting for impeachment.

Where does it say that a President can be impeached only once?

The more trump abuses his office the worse 2020 will be for him.

 

[hadit]

Articles of impeachment are not a "bill." They don't go to the president's desk for approval and they don't expire at the end of a Congressional session. Articles of impeachment don't just "die."

Well, they could. Why not? They get to decide procedural matters like this. Remember this is only the THIRD impeachment. They are making this up as they go along. The Dems have a real problem with the polls all turning against their impeachment thingy. They need to back out; Pelosi never wanted to impeach to begin with, but to stay leader she had to run around and get in front of her rebellious and shocked and angry younger Dems. Too bad for her --- she was right in the first place.

Odds are she'll come across with the charges next week, but it would be interesting if she sat on it.

She can sit on them as long as she likes. Though she can only sit on them as long as she's Speaker.

She can, and McConnell, once he gets them, can keep the Senate in session as long as he wants to through campaign season. The RNC has a lot more money available to help vulnerable Republican Senators than the DNC does to help theirs. It would be a great leverage tool. "Oh, you want to go home and campaign? We already know how you want to vote, just let us know when you're ready to come to your senses".

 

[Circe]

She can sit on them as long as she likes. Though she can only sit on them as long as she's Speaker.

Huh. Now THAT is an interesting point. You seem to be implying that if Pelosi sits on the charges, hoping to let them die, her angry younger Dems who already tried very hard and failed to overthrow her at the beginning of this Congress, might really overthrow her this time and pick somebody that would send the charges to the Senate.

Hm. I like. That could happen. Let's watch and see.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Perhaps Pelosi should hold the articles of Impeachment until after the 2020 election!

 

[hadit]

From the U.S. Constitution:

"The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment"

The power of Impeachment has NOTHING to do with the Senate.

The rubes don't get that.

Trump is impeached, no doubt. Once he's acquitted, he'll be more dangerous than ever before because he has nothing left to fear. The democrats will have thrown their biggest turd at him and he's still standing, very rich, very powerful, very ticked off and very petty. Not a good time to be a democrat voting for impeachment.

Where does it say that a President can be impeached only once?

The more trump abuses his office the worse 2020 will be for him.

Not likely. More likely will be the Kavanaugh effect, wherein the democrats find ever more desperate things to throw and the voters just get tired of their abuse of their offices.

 

[hadit]

Perhaps Pelosi should hold the articles of Impeachment until after the 2020 election!

Good chance the dems lose the House and the articles are rescinded. Then she might as well retire in shame.