Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a subtle matter of semantics that make a lot of difference.
He is not "being" impeached. He "is" impeached. The process has already begun.
Sort of like if you start painting your house and there is now fresh paint on your house - that means your house IS painted. You would be incorrect to say "my house has been painted" because the job isn't finished yet. But you would be correct in saying "my house is painted."
Same thing with the word impeachment. It is, vs. it has been.
It’s been fun watching the democrats in the house suicide their party while screeching, screaming and regurgitating hate. Too late for them now. They’re over.
Articles of Impeachment are not the same as a Bill.
The founding father's did not intend the process of impeachment to be some form of partisan brinkmanship. Nor did they intend for the House or the Senate to be able to hold the country and the presidency in limbo.
It's clear from Pelosi's games, that the only real threat to our form of government and Constitution is the democratic party.
While it doesn't make much difference in a practical sense because no one expects a conviction, imagine if there was a real possibility of conviction the damage she would be doing to the nation. Its outrageous really. She should be impeached.
The founding fathers also didn't intend that the POTUS to be a dictator. Seems some Republicans in the Senate think differently. Ask Ms Lyndsey Graham.
All the House is asking is that Moscow Mitch allow witnesses. He refuses. Aren't witnesses generally called to testify in a trial?
The founding fathers also didn't intend that the POTUS to be a dictator. Seems some Republicans in the Senate think differently. Ask Ms Lyndsey Graham.
All the House is asking is that Moscow Mitch allow witnesses. He refuses. Aren't witnesses generally called to testify in a trial?
All the House is asking is that they dictate to the Senate exactly how the Senate conducts their business....apparently some want the Speaker of the House to be a dictator.
In this instance, you have essentially a frivolous lawsuit, the proper thing for the Senate to do is to dismiss it with prejudice immediately upon arrival. Quite often charges are dismissed without a trial, especially in instances where the case has been pushed without evidence or when a case comes to a court without a valid charge.
Democrats are worried about the Senate doing the right thing since the House disgraced themselves by not doing the right thing.
The vote means the impeachment process has OFFICIALLY begun. And therefore, he is OFFICIALLY impeached. Whether it moves forward is another matter entirely. But he can't say that it didn't happen, because it has started, it is happening. Even if they decide to drop it tomorrow, he will have been impeached, because the process has become officially active with the vote.
Also Pelosi didn't say she has no intention of sending the articles over to Senate. She said she is waiting until she is sure there will be a fair, unbiased trial. So far McConnell has made it clear he has no intention of giving a fair, unbiased trial. So she'll have to wait until he either changes his mind, or is replaced as the Senate Leader. There's plenty of time, though it'd be ideal if they could get it done sooner rather than later.
If Nancy expected a "fair and unbiased" trial in the Senate, then she and Shifty should have run fair and unbiased hearings and inquiry in the House.
But then again, if they did that, it wouldn't have been an impeachment and it wouldn't be going to the Senate.
I've read opinions by several constitutional scholars:
after impeachment by the house, the articles must be acted on my the senate as dictated by the constitution. the senate must act with or without further action by the house to submit the articles. the president has been impeached once voted on by the house.
the house must first submit the articles of impeachment to the senate before the senate can act. impeachment is contingent on the action of submitting the articles to the senate. the president is not impeached until articles received by the senate.
which is it?
What is to stop Mitch McConnell from moving ahead with the trial if he wants to? As far as the articles of impeachment, they have been published in the Congressional Record for access by anyone and everyone. Here is the link:
Mitch McConnell can move ahead and the Democrats could try to appeal that to the Supreme Court if the wish. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court enabling this matter to stay in limbo during an election year for what is obviously purposes of partisan vindictiveness by the Democrats. The non-TDS afflicted American people are not going to respect these kinds of shenanigans, either.
Anyway, it is up to McConnell now. This process was never intended to be abused in the way that it currently is. McConnell will be completely in the right to move ahead and finish this exercise. Let the Democrats appeal that to the Supreme Court if they do not like it.
I have said it before and will say it again. The House does not have unlimited power, even regarding Impeachment. They have the Power to Impeach, but once their portion of the process is completed, other Constitutional issues may affect it. If they fail to deliver the Articles to the Senate in a timely fashion, The POTUS might bring the issue to the SCOTUS on several grounds.
That is correct. If Nervous Nancy thinks that they are going to sit on this until after the 2020 election, to see if Trump wins and if the Senate is flipped to their control -- well, the Supreme Court is going to have something to say about it.
I have said it before and will say it again. The House does not have unlimited power, even regarding Impeachment. They have the Power to Impeach, but once their portion of the process is completed, other Constitutional issues may affect it. If they fail to deliver the Articles to the Senate in a timely fashion, The POTUS might bring the issue to the SCOTUS on several grounds.
i wouldn't be surprised at all if SCOTUS doesn't take it up an just points out the constitution says "sole power"
they could kick it back and leave it to the house and senate to fight it out.
we could be headed to a real constitutional show down.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
