Will Speaker Pelosi withhold articles of impeachment from Senate until guaranteed a fair trial?

[Nostra]

Your bolded section does not make your point you mistakenly feel that you are proving.
One branch does in fact send it’s impeachment finding and recommendations to the other, and in this case more superior branch, for its affirmation or denial. Then and only then is there Impeachment or not.
Kinda like in the McDonalds you work at-you may have it in for the fries cooker and “fire” him but he’s not fired unless boss(senate) says so and your running around spouting “He’s fired” is just as silly and immature a denial of reality as “He’s impeached”

LOLOL

The Senate says folks who are impeached remain impeached even if they're acquitted by a Senate trial.

There is no mechanism in the Senate to say an impeached person is not impeached. Nor can they ig they wanted to since the Constitution gives the House "sole power" of impeachment.

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

....and he isn't impeached until Nazi Pelousy takes the articles of impeachment to the Senate. As long as she is hiding them, she has not completed the House's work.

Oops!

LOLOL

So you say but the House says otherwise. So why on Earth would anyone believe you over the House?

Not me. The Constitution. The Constitution trumps window licking Dimwingers in the House, and here.

You lose again, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

And of course, the Constitution says no such thing. it does say the House gets to establish it's 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.​

... and the House rules say a person is impeached upon the adoption of articles of impeachment....

​

... and Madame Speaker declared there were 2 articles of impeachment adopted on 12.18.2019...

"Article I is adopted." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

​

... g'head, teabagger, tell me again how I lose. That's the part of your nonsensical posts that makes me laugh the hardest.

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

 

[WEATHER53]

Was Clinton impeached ? still served to the end of his term Is he an impeached president?

Clinton was not impeached. The articles were sent to the Senate but they said No.

LOLOLOL

You rightards crack me up!

Now you've got the Senate laughing at you too.

All this shows is an ordinary piece of paper with no resource attribution for validity.

 

[LaDairis]

Yeah, it is like....

We, the House aka Grand Jury, indict person X, but we are so ashamed of what a lame indictment it is, we won't let the jury hear the trial.... so the person is forever "indicted" but never allowed due process....

LOL!!!!!


New soundbite.....


What is Paul Pelosi's NET WORTH, and how did he MAKE ALL THAT MONEY????

Keep shouting it at Nancy until she answers it.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

The Senate says folks who are impeached remain impeached even if they're acquitted by a Senate trial.

There is no mechanism in the Senate to say an impeached person is not impeached. Nor can they ig they wanted to since the Constitution gives the House "sole power" of impeachment.

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

....and he isn't impeached until Nazi Pelousy takes the articles of impeachment to the Senate. As long as she is hiding them, she has not completed the House's work.

Oops!

LOLOL

So you say but the House says otherwise. So why on Earth would anyone believe you over the House?

Not me. The Constitution. The Constitution trumps window licking Dimwingers in the House, and here.

You lose again, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

And of course, the Constitution says no such thing. it does say the House gets to establish it's 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.​

... and the House rules say a person is impeached upon the adoption of articles of impeachment....

​

... and Madame Speaker declared there were 2 articles of impeachment adopted on 12.18.2019...

"Article I is adopted." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

​

... g'head, teabagger, tell me again how I lose. That's the part of your nonsensical posts that makes me laugh the hardest.

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

 

[Nostra]

....and he isn't impeached until Nazi Pelousy takes the articles of impeachment to the Senate. As long as she is hiding them, she has not completed the House's work.

Oops!

LOLOL

So you say but the House says otherwise. So why on Earth would anyone believe you over the House?

Not me. The Constitution. The Constitution trumps window licking Dimwingers in the House, and here.

You lose again, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

And of course, the Constitution says no such thing. it does say the House gets to establish it's 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.​

... and the House rules say a person is impeached upon the adoption of articles of impeachment....

​

... and Madame Speaker declared there were 2 articles of impeachment adopted on 12.18.2019...

"Article I is adopted." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

​

... g'head, teabagger, tell me again how I lose. That's the part of your nonsensical posts that makes me laugh the hardest.

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

 

[WEATHER53]

Was Clinton impeached ? still served to the end of his term Is he an impeached president?

Clinton was not impeached. The articles were sent to the Senate but they said No.

LOLOLOL

You rightards crack me up!

Now you've got the Senate laughing at you too.

All this shows is an ordinary piece of paper with no resource attribution for validity.

Senate rules on the procedures for impeachment trials....

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf

Even worse for you is this does not prove your “point”. The House can refer the Articles, they are declining to do so, and both branches must agree is order for the Impeachment Articles to be approved. You are attempting to convey that the President Is impeached via the declarations of one branch alone. That is incorrect and in fact that one branch has not even implemented the necessary procedure to further it’s cause.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

So you say but the House says otherwise. So why on Earth would anyone believe you over the House?

Not me. The Constitution. The Constitution trumps window licking Dimwingers in the House, and here.

You lose again, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

And of course, the Constitution says no such thing. it does say the House gets to establish it's 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.​

... and the House rules say a person is impeached upon the adoption of articles of impeachment....

​

... and Madame Speaker declared there were 2 articles of impeachment adopted on 12.18.2019...

"Article I is adopted." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

​

... g'head, teabagger, tell me again how I lose. That's the part of your nonsensical posts that makes me laugh the hardest.

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

 

[Nostra]

Not me. The Constitution. The Constitution trumps window licking Dimwingers in the House, and here.

You lose again, Fuckwit.

LOLOL

And of course, the Constitution says no such thing. it does say the House gets to establish it's 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.​

... and the House rules say a person is impeached upon the adoption of articles of impeachment....

​

... and Madame Speaker declared there were 2 articles of impeachment adopted on 12.18.2019...

"Article I is adopted." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

​

... g'head, teabagger, tell me again how I lose. That's the part of your nonsensical posts that makes me laugh the hardest.

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

 

[Faun]

Was Clinton impeached ? still served to the end of his term Is he an impeached president?

Clinton was not impeached. The articles were sent to the Senate but they said No.

LOLOLOL

You rightards crack me up!

Now you've got the Senate laughing at you too.

All this shows is an ordinary piece of paper with no resource attribution for validity.

Senate rules, baby.

https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Impeachment.pdf

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

And of course, the Constitution says no such thing. it does say the House gets to establish it's 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.​

... and the House rules say a person is impeached upon the adoption of articles of impeachment....

​

... and Madame Speaker declared there were 2 articles of impeachment adopted on 12.18.2019...

"Article I is adopted." ~ Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

​

... g'head, teabagger, tell me again how I lose. That's the part of your nonsensical posts that makes me laugh the hardest.

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

LOLOLOL

So you think rules are unconstitutional because you say so.

 

[Nostra]

House rules do not trump the Constitution.

US Contitution: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try ALL IMPEACHMENTS". Until Nazi Pelousy presents the articles for a trial, there is no impeachment.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

LOLOLOL

So you think rules are unconstitutional because you say so.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

 

[WEATHER53]

Was Clinton impeached ? still served to the end of his term Is he an impeached president?

Clinton was not impeached. The articles were sent to the Senate but they said No.

LOLOLOL

You rightards crack me up!

Now you've got the Senate laughing at you too.

All this shows is an ordinary piece of paper with no resource attribution for validity.

Senate rules, baby.

https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Impeachment.pdf

Senate rules are rules for inside the senate. They do not supersede other laws, it tells the Senate what to do but is not determinate of outcome.

 

[edward37]

Yeah, it is like....

We, the House aka Grand Jury, indict person X, but we are so ashamed of what a lame indictment it is, we won't let the jury hear the trial.... so the person is forever "indicted" but never allowed due process....

LOL!!!!!


New soundbite.....


What is Paul Pelosi's NET WORTH, and how did he MAKE ALL THAT MONEY????

Keep shouting it at Nancy until she answers it.

Maybe he invested in the criminal Trumps properties? The billionaire who went bankrupt 6 times who no American bank would loan a dime to

 

[Nostra]

Was Clinton impeached ? still served to the end of his term Is he an impeached president?

Clinton was not impeached. The articles were sent to the Senate but they said No.

LOLOLOL

You rightards crack me up!

Now you've got the Senate laughing at you too.

All this shows is an ordinary piece of paper with no resource attribution for validity.

Senate rules, baby.

https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Impeachment.pdf

Senate rules are rules for inside the senate. They do not supersede other laws, it tells the Senate what to do but is not determinate of outcome.

That idiot thinks if the House makes a rule, it supersedes the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Dumbfuck....

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.​

Do you even know you're retarded?

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

LOLOLOL

So you think rules are unconstitutional because you say so.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

LOLOL

Like I said, teabagger, you're not man enough to dismiss me.

You're also not the arbitrator of the Constitution. The judicial branch is and even they're laughing at your abject ignorance.

 

[Faun]

Clinton was not impeached. The articles were sent to the Senate but they said No.

LOLOLOL

You rightards crack me up!

Now you've got the Senate laughing at you too.

All this shows is an ordinary piece of paper with no resource attribution for validity.

That idiot thinks if the House makes a rule, it supersedes the Constitution.
Senate rules, baby.

https://www.riddick.gpo.gov/UserData/SenateProcedures/Impeachment.pdf

Senate rules are rules for inside the senate. They do not supersede other laws, it tells the Senate what to do but is not determinate of outcome.

Try posting words next time, imbecile.

 

[Nostra]

House rules do not trump the Constitution, ya fucking crayon eating moron.

You lose again, Dumbfuck.

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

LOLOLOL

So you think rules are unconstitutional because you say so.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

LOLOL

Like I said, teabagger, you're not man enough to dismiss me.

You're also not the arbitrator of the Constitution. The judicial branch is and even they're laughing at your abject ignorance.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

 

[ThisIsMe]

From your article:

It is saying that the impeachment process is just an accusation, the Senate decides he is guilty.

Treason and bribery are the two reasons for removal. Neither of those were stated in the articles of impeachment.

High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis.

The senate determines if the president has committed a crime, they also determine how the trial is conducted.

So, let's say the president is actually impeached. An impeachment is simply an accusation levied against him. It is up to the senate to determine if he actually committed a crime.

"High crimes and misdemeanors are not defined, and are vague, making it difficult to impeach a president using this as a basis."

That refers to a violation of of public's trust.

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

Origins

Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.​

From your link:

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.

Madison objected to "maladministration" because it was too vague, so he substituted "high crimes and misdemeanors" which was a British legal term for crimes against the government.

It refers to a violation of public trust or abuse of power or office.

Well, that's just it, it doesnt say that. It says a crime against the government. I dont know if that means public trust or not.

While violation of public trust is bad, for sure, in the actual text and intent of the wording, it seems to indicate crimes against the government. I would assume that means things like treason, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.

Incorrect. When you understand what the context of the phrase means from the founders perspective, this means much more.

A high crime means it can only be committed by a highly seated official. Those individuals are given tremendous amounts of power and therefore require the trust of the people in order to properly govern. If an official abuses that power it betrays the trust of the people and therefore is suitable grounds for removal by impeachment.

Well, if you look at the federalist articles that faun posted, you would see that high crimes was taken from British terminology for crimes against the government. I dont believe it was referring to being seated in powerful positions, it was referring to the type of crime committed.

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOL

Poor dumbfuck, who declared that rule is in violation of the Constitution? Cite the U.S. Supreme Court case....

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

LOLOLOL

So you think rules are unconstitutional because you say so.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

LOLOL

Like I said, teabagger, you're not man enough to dismiss me.

You're also not the arbitrator of the Constitution. The judicial branch is and even they're laughing at your abject ignorance.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

LOLOL

Slobbers the forum dumbfuck who thinks he speaks for the Constitution.

^^^ Never impeached.

 

[Nostra]

There doesn't need to be a ruling, Chowderhead.

It's common knowledge to anyone with at least a double digit IQ the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not rules by Nazi Pelousy.

How many times are you going to lose on this one, Taterbrain?

LOLOLOL

So you think rules are unconstitutional because you say so.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

LOLOL

Like I said, teabagger, you're not man enough to dismiss me.

You're also not the arbitrator of the Constitution. The judicial branch is and even they're laughing at your abject ignorance.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.

LOLOL

Slobbers the forum dumbfuck who thinks he speaks for the Constitution.

^^^ Never impeached.

Get back to me once you learn how the Constitution works.

Dismissed, moron.