If the Senate allows a fair trial...

Rememeber the Democrats own Constitutional expert Noeh Feldman?
In a Bloomberg op-ed, Harvard legal scholar Noah Feldman said Pelosi, D-Calif., can delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, but not for an "indefinite" period of time.

"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. Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial," he wrote, going on to say that if the House doesn't release the articles, Trump could legitimately declare that he was never actually impeached.
Click to expand...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-not-impeached-yet-noah-feldman
 
That's Feldman's opinion.

So what?

Moscow Mitch has a solemn constitutional duty to hold an open trial, but he won't do that.

What Trump "declares" is immaterial.
 
Perhaps we should get on with the trial so that the Republicans who've already declared that they have no intention of being impartial jurors can be immediately arrested as soon as they take the oath to do so. I wouldn't mind seeing Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham dragged away in handcuffs.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Perhaps we should get on with the trial so that the Republicans who've already declared that they have no intention of being impartial jurors can be immediately arrested as soon as they take the oath to do so. I wouldn't mind seeing Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham dragged away in handcuffs.
Click to expand...

How many drugs a day do you do? And not even good ones.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The entire article is stupid.

YES...the president HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

The articles will eventually go over to the Senate for the trial. My guess is that it will only be a few days...but that delay does not mean he has not been impeached.

As the pathetic writer (a former Giuliani attorney and political hack for the National Review) noted, the delay will not go on for long.
Click to expand...

In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known,
but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken.
A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant
is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk
of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is
technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial
court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate
court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action,
but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance
of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally
transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must
occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker
Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of
impeachment articles.
Andrew McCarthy 12/19/19 National Review

*****

The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of
impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons
impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of
impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought
against the accused in the House of Lords.

Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of
impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate
is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its
own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is
empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole
power to try all impeachments” means.

If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or
send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated
the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit
logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.

A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the
opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the
constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.

To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the
Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.

But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong
justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the
message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-for-democrats
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Perhaps we should get on with the trial so that the Republicans who've already declared that they have no intention of being impartial jurors can be immediately arrested as soon as they take the oath to do so. I wouldn't mind seeing Moscow Mitch and Lindsey Graham dragged away in handcuffs.
Click to expand...

pelosi is smart enough to know dems will lose. it's over.
 
Jarod said:
If the Senate conducts a fair and through trial with witnesses such as mulvaney, and Bolton... Trump will be removed.
Click to expand...

maybe Mulvanny will get mad he was blamed for the shit he was told by the Orange Putin's ass pimple to say in that Presser he did ( the get over it one)


it didn't work like Trumpy thought it would so like always he blamed the person he ordered to do it for the results


trump sure would be Fucked if Mulvanny turned on him
 
Stretch said:
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known,
but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken.
A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant
is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk
of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is
technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial
court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate
court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action,
but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance
of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally
transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must
occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker
Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of
impeachment articles.
Andrew McCarthy 12/19/19 National Review

*****

The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of
impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons
impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of
impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought
against the accused in the House of Lords.

Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of
impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate
is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its
own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is
empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole
power to try all impeachments” means.

If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or
send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated
the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit
logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.

A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the
opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the
constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.

To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the
Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.

But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong
justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the
message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-for-democrats
Click to expand...

Opinion.

Now, quote the Constitution
 
Stretch said:
In the law, there are many situations in which an outcome is known,
but it is not a formal outcome until some ministerial act is taken.
A grand jury can vote an indictment, for example, but the defendant
is not considered indicted until the charges are filed with the clerk
of the court. A defendant can be found guilty by a jury, but there is
technically no conviction until the judgment is “entered” by the trial
court, usually months later when sentence is imposed. An appellate
court can issue a ruling that orders a lower court to take some action,
but the lower court has no jurisdiction to act in the case until issuance
of the appellate court’s “mandate” — the document that formally
transfers jurisdiction.

Plainly, Congress has similar ministerial acts of transference that must
occur in order for legislation to pass. Were that not the case, Speaker
Pelosi would not be talking about delaying the transfer of
impeachment articles.
Andrew McCarthy 12/19/19 National Review

*****

The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of
impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons
impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of
impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought
against the accused in the House of Lords.

strAnd at that point, the Senate
is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its
own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is
empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole
power to try all impeachments” means.

If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or
send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated
the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit
logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.

A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the
opportunity to defend himself before the Senate. That’s built into the
constitutional logic of impeachment, which demands a trial before removal.

To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the
Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means.

But if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with strong
justification that he was never actually impeached. And that’s probably not the
message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-for-democrats
Click to expand...

Thank you for all that, Stretch.

BUT...strictly speaking, the president is impeached when the articles of impeachment are agreed to in the House.

Trump has been IMPEACHED.

At some point, the Speaker will deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate and a trial 9(of some sort) will occur.

But make no mistake about it...the House has already impeached the president.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Thank you for all that, Stretch.

BUT...strictly speaking, the president is impeached when the articles of impeachment are agreed to in the House.

Trump has been IMPEACHED.

At some point, the Speaker will deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate and a trial 9(of some sort) will occur.

But make no mistake about it...the House has already impeached the president.
Click to expand...

The House did their part. They voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate...on their 7th effort in 3 years.
Those articles go to the Senate in order to have a trial which will decide to impeach or not.
IOW, the House THINKS he should be (future tense) impeached as evidenced by their vote.
The Senate will render the final judgement.
 
Stretch said:
The House did their part. They voted to send articles of impeachment to the Senate...on their 7th effort in 3 years.
Those articles go to the Senate in order to have a trial which will decide to impeach or not.
Click to expand...

That is not correct.

He has already been impeached. The Senate CANNOT impeach him...only the House.


IOW, the House THINKS he should be (future tense) impeached as evidenced by their vote.
The Senate will render the final judgement.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Frank Apisa said:
That is not correct.

He has already been impeached. The Senate CANNOT impeach him...only the House.
See above.
Click to expand...

The House is solely in charge of bringing impeachment articles to the Senate who then makes the judgement!

"If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or
send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated
the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit
logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment."
 
Stretch said:
The House is solely in charge of bringing impeachment articles to the Senate who then makes the judgement!

"If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or
send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated
the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit
logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment."
Click to expand...

Stretch...you wrote: "Those articles go to the Senate in order to have a trial which will decide to impeach or not."

That is totally, 100% incorrect.

The House has the sole responsibility for impeaching the president.

The Senate can only hold a trial...and find him guilty or acquit him. If the Senate acquits Trump...he will still have been impeached.

Former President Clinton was IMPEACHED. He was acquitted. But he was still impeached.

Same things goes for the late President Andrew Johnson.
 
"...only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its
own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means."

"...if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the
Senate, there can be no trial there. That’s what the “sole power to impeach” means."


IOW, The House STARTS the impeachment PROCESS. The Senate FINISHES it.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Stretch...you wrote: "Those articles go to the Senate in order to have a trial which will decide to impeach or not."

That is totally, 100% incorrect.

The House has the sole responsibility for impeaching the president.

The Senate can only hold a trial...and find him guilty or acquit him. If the Senate acquits Trump...he will still have been impeached.

Former President Clinton was IMPEACHED. He was acquitted. But he was still impeached.

Same things goes for the late President Andrew Johnson.
Click to expand...


doesn't that all sound silly to you? as when Clinton was "impeached" basically over a personal matter. It's just theater.

And like when Clinton was impeached it will backfire on the "impeachers" party

If we don't learn from history what good are we
 
Getin the ring said:
doesn't that all sound silly to you? as when Clinton was "impeached" basically over a personal matter. It's just theater.

And like when Clinton was impeached it will backfire on the "impeachers" party

If we don't learn from history what good are we
Click to expand...

It does not sound silly to me.

It appears to me that Trump attempted to extort newly-elected Ukrainian President Zelensky to perform a politically advantageous deed for him (Trump) personally, Getin.

As I see it, Trump deserves (deserved) to be impeached more than Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton.

YES...it may "backfire" on the Democrats. I personally am proud of them for facing the danger, because the impeachment was, in my opinion, more than just justified, it was essential.
 
How many ties have we heard impeachment in the House is like indictment by a grand jury and the trial in the Senate is like a jury trial. Well its also said that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. So the House can submit their Ham Sandwich but its going nowhere. And just like a person that indicted by a grand jury and found innocent the President will have no stigma attached to his name for the House's Ham sandwich indictment.
 
Jarod said:
If the Senate conducts a fair and through trial with witnesses such as mulvaney, and Bolton... Trump will be removed.
Click to expand...
The Senate is not interested in the Left's obsession with the President, jarhead. You'll just have to take all that manufactured bullshit and shove it up your asses. ;)
 
The Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills.
The House initiates impeachment cases, while the Senate decides impeachment cases.

Maybe some people these days think we should just get rid of the Senate and give all the power to the House to
write up what they want and then pass all their own stuff. :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top