Will Pelosi Send Impeachment to the Senate ?

[protectionist]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

Peloser will never hand the articles over, and because of that every other bullet is done

That's correct. She won't, unless she is somehow Forced to.

She might be a crazy liberal, but she is pretty smart

 

[Hum Dinger]

It is my opinion that by sitting on the House Articles of Impeachment, Pelosi is denying Trump the right to a speedy trial - justice delayed is justice denied. So, when the Senate reconvenes on Friday 3 Jan, McConnell will ask his caucus if they want to accept the same rules that governed the Clinton trial, with one proviso - the Senate can set a deadline for the house to send over the Articles, after which the Senate will vote to start the trial anyway, or maybe just hold a vote right off the bat to dismiss the charges. It's no secret what the charges are, the House wrote these big-ass documents detailing every little thing, and it's not like they need to be waiting on the house to finally do it's duty. Plus, as I noted above, due process is not being carried out here for political reasons. I think the Senate is justified in forcing the issue.

So - what's Pelosi going to do if the Senate tells her to send over the Articles within say 72 hours after they reconvene on Tuesday 7 Jan (I think it is), or else they conduct the trial anyway, and probably have a vote to dismiss. Probably scream bloody murder and go to the courts for a stay, which will be appealed if granted. But I don't see this nonsense going on for long, everybody knows damn well the GOP-controlled Senate is not going to vote to remove Trump from office based on the ridiculous charges brought by the house. And the Dems have already said they will impeach Trump a 2nd time if new evidence surfaces, so WTF? They should've done a more thorough job in the 1st place, and I don't see the courts buying their argument that they can wait until the Senate agrees to their demands for how the trial will proceed. Frankly, it's none of their damn business.

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

So you think she will send them to the Senate, and walk headfirst into a Republican optics victory ?

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ? And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

No. She'll send the Article to the Senate and let the Republican Senators show the American people that they are a bunch of spineless weenies.

Americans hate spineless weenies!

 

[Hum Dinger]

Right now, both McConnell and Graham are subject to removal from the Senate in accordance with Senate rules.

If only the rest of the Republican Senators were not spineless weenies!

 

[Faun]

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.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

What came of that was the determination that members of Congress are not civil officers and the Constitution limits impeachment to only the president, vice-president and civil officers. Senators cannot be impeached.

"Civil Officer" Defined

CIVIL OFFICER
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.​

 

[Faun]

There is no constitutional right to a speedy trial when it comes to impeachment. That only applies to criminal prosecutions.

And the Senate can't force the House to send the Articles to them. Nor can they begin the trial unless they vote, and pass, new rules to allow that.

So you agree with me that Pelosi will NOT send the articles to the Senate, right ?

No, I don't agree with you.

So you think she will send them to the Senate, walk headfirst into a Republican optics victory ?

You realize this whole thing is nothing but an optics war, right ? And the articles going to the Senate, constitutes a Republican victory, and a Democrat defeat, right ?

I already said I expect she will send them to the Senate. Are you hard of reading?

You either

1. don't have the foggiest idea of what is going on here

2. or you must think Pelosi is awfully stupid.

 

[SweetSue92]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

Floridly delusional.

 

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

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

What came of that was the determination that members of Congress are not civil officers and the Constitution limits impeachment to only the president, vice-president and civil officers. Senators cannot be impeached.

"Civil Officer" Defined

CIVIL OFFICER
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.​

The first part of that statement is correct:

"that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The rest is opinion.

In 1787 President John Adams and the majority of the House believed that a Senator was subject to impeachment. The fact that the House impeached Senator Blount proves it. He was in fact impeached.

The finding that a Senator is not a civil officer was the opinion of the Senate...clearly an extremely biased opinion. Besides the Senate did not invalidate the impeachment, they simply stated that they did not have the authority to try him - not exactly the same thing.

The question has never been brought to the courts for determination.

 

[Hum Dinger]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

Floridly delusional.

How ironic - a Trumbot calling some else delusional!

 

[jc456]

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.

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

 

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

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

They removed him according to Senate rules. Read the transcript of the congressional record.

Blount did not challenge the accusations - which were originally made by president Adams.

Blount did object to the impeachment trial by saying that since he was not longer a Senator he could not be impeached, but that argument was rejected (Actually, that argument made sense to me)

 

[jc456]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

Peloser will never hand the articles over, and because of that every other bullet is done

That's correct. She won't, unless she is somehow Forced to.

She might be a crazy liberal, but she is pretty smart

She won’t even if forced. Ain’t no way, no how

 

[Uncensored2008]

Will Pelosi send the Impeachment proceedings over to the Senate ?

Will she do nothing with it, and just let it stay a House thing, and nothing more ?

t

Well, as long as she DOESN'T do this, the "impeachment" is NOT official. Some of the brain dead liberal lunatics that post on this site don't seem to understand this.

that's only an opinion of one or two lawyers, while many more law professors believe and state, otherwise.... because there is no Constitutional direction or command of when they must be turned over to the Senate.... there can be no cancellation of the vote that took place, to impeach.... for not turning them over to the senate immediately...

This never was an impeachment, just election tampering.

I know it, you know it, America knows it.

 

[jc456]

No impeachment without the articles handed

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

They removed him according to Senate rules. Read the transcript of the congressional record.

Blount did not challenge the accusations - which were originally made by president Adams.

Blount did object to the impeachment trial by saying that since he was not longer a Senator he could not be impeached, but that argument was rejected (Actually, that argument made sense to me)

to the senate , that’s process of impeachment! Without that, there’s no impeachment. The scholars said already

 

[jc456]

UOTE="Uncensored2008, post: 23775682, member: 27995"]

Will Pelosi send the Impeachment proceedings over to the Senate ?

Will she do nothing with it, and just let it stay a House thing, and nothing more ?

t

Well, as long as she DOESN'T do this, the "impeachment" is NOT official. Some of the brain dead liberal lunatics that post on this site don't seem to understand this.

that's only an opinion of one or two lawyers, while many more law professors believe and state, otherwise.... because there is no Constitutional direction or command of when they must be turned over to the Senate.... there can be no cancellation of the vote that took place, to impeach.... for not turning them over to the senate immediately...

This never was an impeachment, just election tampering.

I know it, you know it, America knows it.[/QUOTE]

And that friends is the ballgame

 

[Faun]

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

What came of that was the determination that members of Congress are not civil officers and the Constitution limits impeachment to only the president, vice-president and civil officers. Senators cannot be impeached.

"Civil Officer" Defined

CIVIL OFFICER
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.​

The first part of that statement is correct:

"that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The rest is opinion.

In 1787 President John Adams and the majority of the House believed that a Senator was subject to impeachment. The fact that the House impeached Senator Blount proves it. He was in fact impeached.

The finding that a Senator is not a civil officer was the opinion of the Senate...clearly an extremely biased opinion. Besides the Senate did not invalidate the impeachment, they simply stated that they did not have the authority to try him - not exactly the same thing.

The question has never been brought to the courts for determination.

The House also recognizes Congressional members are not civil officers, subject to impeachment...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

The Use of Impeachment
Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers.​

 

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

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

Have you ever read the Constituion??

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.​

 

[Faun]

Senators can't be impeached. Nor can they be removed by the House. They can be expelled by a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, however, which is what happened to the Senator of whom you speak.

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

They removed him according to Senate rules. Read the transcript of the congressional record.

Blount did not challenge the accusations - which were originally made by president Adams.

Blount did object to the impeachment trial by saying that since he was not longer a Senator he could not be impeached, but that argument was rejected (Actually, that argument made sense to me)

Blount argued Senators are not civil officers, subject to impeachment, and the Senate agreed and acquitted him for that reason.

Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 70 - Impeachment and Trial of William Blount

 

[kyzr]

1. Pelosi will send the Articles of impeachment to the Senate in due time...i.e. once she's convinced that the American public are aware of everyone of McConnells attempt to thwart an impartial trial.

2. There will be enough Republicans voting to stop McConnell from preventing witnesses.

3. Judge Roberts will control the trial enough to ensure that there is some semblance of impartiality...he may remove some Senators if they continue to be openly partial.

4. The trial will show that Trump is clearly guilty of the charges.

5. Trump will not be removed from office, but the American people will be witness to the fact that the vast majority of Republican Senators are a bunch of spineless weenies.

6. The Republicans will lose the Presidency, the House and the Senate in the 2020 elections.

1. Acquitted is acquitted is acquitted is acquitted. When Nancy send the Articles to the Senate, they will be dismissed without a circus.
2. No Republican will vote against Mitch, unless they want to find a new job
3. Justice Roberts can be overruled by a simple majority of senators, see #2
4. See #1, please note that no "hearsay evidence" is allowed in the senate
5. We'll see who wins in November after Barr and Durham expose the worst scandal in US history, Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the Obama admin's illegal spying on the Trump campaign.
6. Nancy gave the GOP the House when 31 dems are in Trump districts, and their shitty candidates will give Trump the presidency

 

[Faun]

No impeachment without the articles handed

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

How did they remove him without a trial? That’s not process

They removed him according to Senate rules. Read the transcript of the congressional record.

Blount did not challenge the accusations - which were originally made by president Adams.

Blount did object to the impeachment trial by saying that since he was not longer a Senator he could not be impeached, but that argument was rejected (Actually, that argument made sense to me)

to the senate , that’s process of impeachment! Without that, there’s no impeachment. The scholars said already

Even more scholars rejected that idiocy.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Senator Blount was impeached by the House. He was then removed by the Senate in accordance with their rules. After that the Senate started an impeachment trial, but decided that they could not try him because he was an elected official, not an appointed officer.

He was in fact impeached by the house.

The refusal of the Senate to try him was never challenged in court. At the time the House was satisfied by his removal.

The House can impeach McConnell. The Senate may ignore it, but the House still could impeach him.

Blount was expelled before it even went to trial. Then the Senate voted Senators, as elected officials, were not subject to impeachment.

And the Constitution states that both houses are responsible for expelling members of their respective house...

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.​

... impeachment is not even mentioned there.

The Senate started an impeachment trial after removing him. He and his counsel were present.

Read the Congressional Record - I did.

What came of that was the determination that members of Congress are not civil officers and the Constitution limits impeachment to only the president, vice-president and civil officers. Senators cannot be impeached.

"Civil Officer" Defined

CIVIL OFFICER
The Constitution of the United States, Art. 2, S. 4, provides, that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. By this term are included all officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy. A senator of the United States, it was once decided, was not a civil officer, within the meaning of this clause in the Constitution.​

The first part of that statement is correct:

"that the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The rest is opinion.

In 1787 President John Adams and the majority of the House believed that a Senator was subject to impeachment. The fact that the House impeached Senator Blount proves it. He was in fact impeached.

The finding that a Senator is not a civil officer was the opinion of the Senate...clearly an extremely biased opinion. Besides the Senate did not invalidate the impeachment, they simply stated that they did not have the authority to try him - not exactly the same thing.

The question has never been brought to the courts for determination.

The House also recognizes Congressional members are not civil officers, subject to impeachment...

https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

The Use of Impeachment
Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers.​

That may be the commonly accepted OPINION, but it's never been challenged in court.

Just read the above statement:

"Blount’s impeachment trial"

How could there have been an impeachment trial if Blount was never impeached?

"established the principle"

A principal that has never been challeged.

For example:

Suppose that in 1787 the Senate has NOT removed Blount from office AND had voted not to try him.

Would the House of representatives have done nothing? Just accepted it?

I doubt it. They would have gone to the courts to determine if the Senate had a responsibility to try him.

The fact that the House decided not to make a 'big deal' of it because Blunt was removed anyway, did not invalidate the impeachment. Technically the House should have gone to the courts to determine the Senate's responsibility.