Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Zymologist]

Purely a procedural question regarding the OP: has there been any resolution on whether the impeachment technically went through, if the articles are not transmitted? If it's true that the transmittal of the articles is a requirement for the impeachment to actually have happened, has there been any discussion about an amount of time that they could be held? I don't mean discussion here, I mean by legal scholars. I'm wondering if there's been any kind of consensus on this.

[JimL]

You guys keep.acting like the Senate has to proceed as if the weakness of the Democrat case against Trump isn't already public knowledge. I don't buy that. There's impartiality, and then there's unreasonable ignorance.

Is that why you are all afraid to hear the previously blocked direct witnesses because you already know the Prsesident is innocent? The contradictory nature of your argument makes apparent your fears.

[JimL]

Purely a procedural question regarding the OP: has there been any resolution on whether the impeachment technically went through, if the articles are not transmitted? If it's true that the transmittal of the articles is a requirement for the impeachment to actually have happened, has there been any discussion about an amount of time that they could be held? I don't mean discussion here, I mean by legal scholars. I'm wondering if there's been any kind of consensus on this.

The House has to first turn over the articles to the senate, and as far as I know there is no legal time limit specified to do that. It's not in the Constitution, so unless it's an established House rule, and it apparently is not, it's up to them.

[Zymologist]

The House has to first turn over the articles to the senate, and as far as I know there is no legal time limit specified to do that. It's not in the Constitution, so unless it's an established House rule, and it apparently is not, it's up to them.

This seems to be Noah Feldman's take, and that is that Trump has not, in fact, been impeached. Where are you getting this from? Any source other than Feldman?

[JimL]

This seems to be Noah Feldman's take, and that is that Trump has not, in fact, been impeached. Where are you getting this from? Any source other than Feldman?

Don't know who Feldman is, but there is no such rule established in the Constitution, there is no time limit specified, but what is specified is that the House has the sole power of impeachment, therefore they make the rules. So, if there was no pre-established House rule requiring a time limit, it's left open for the House to decide. As it turns out, no time limit is a good thing, as it can help check an otherwise impartial (sham) Senate trial from taking place.

[Cow Poke]

No. Insisting that the Senate trial will be a sham is what the people running it have already said it will be:

Senator Lindsey Graham: “This thing will come to the Senate, and it will die quickly, and I will do everything I can to make it die quickly,” he said. “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Senate Leader McConnell: “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can,” he said".

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...artial/603658/

In short, the trial of the president will be a sham run at the personal direction of the president himself.

So, if you'll read very carefully, Tass, you'll note that the word "sham" appears NOWHERE in either statement. Having recognized the House's impeachment sham for what it is, they're simply saying "it stops here".

[DivineOb]

Let's pretend that Pelosi is only holding back the articles because she is playing politics (in some sense she is certainly playing politics but I mean lets look at it purely from an angle of inflicting maximum pain on the resident). Wouldn't you all agree that with new bombshells emerging every day it only makes sense to wait as long as possible? This article is from 12/29 and reveal a lot of new details but most damning that

Opposition to the order from his top national security advisers was more intense than previously known. In late August, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.

which certainly weakens defenses that continuing to hold the aid was in the United States best interest.

[Cow Poke]

Let's pretend that Pelosi is only holding back the articles because she is playing politics (in some sense she is certainly playing politics but I mean lets look at it purely from an angle of inflicting maximum pain on the resident). Wouldn't you all agree that with new bombshells emerging every day it only makes sense to wait as long as possible? This article is from 12/29 and reveal a lot of new details but most damning that

Opposition to the order from his top national security advisers was more intense than previously known. In late August, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.

which certainly weakens defenses that continuing to hold the aid was in the United States best interest.

On the other side, there's new info coming out on the beginning of this whole thing, and the tainted FBI personnel involved.

Besides, the "new information" coming out on the Democrats' side tends to show they rushed to judgment before all the information was in.

I'm really thinking that both sides already have their minds made up, and nothing short of something powerfully explosive isn't going to move the needle.

[DivineOb]

On the other side, there's new info coming out on the beginning of this whole thing, and the tainted FBI personnel involved.

Besides, the "new information" coming out on the Democrats' side tends to show they rushed to judgment before all the information was in.

I'm really thinking that both sides already have their minds made up, and nothing short of something powerfully explosive isn't going to move the needle.

I'd be more than happy to read legit (yeah, I get to decide to ignore news which doesn't appear in, at minimum, Fox. Fell for that trap in 2016 already.) reporting which points to the Democrats rushing to judgement on UKR.

I agree we need something powerfully explosive to grind away at the currently unconvinced. You don't find Trump overrulling the SoS and Secretary of Defense to continue holding the aid a little bit explosive? What about Bolton and Pompeo testifying to that effect?

[Cow Poke]

I'd be more than happy to read legit (yeah, I get to decide to ignore news which doesn't appear in, at minimum, Fox. Fell for that trap in 2016 already.) reporting which points to the Democrats rushing to judgement on UKR.

I think I've pretty well tired of the whole thing -- if the Democrats think they can prevail in the Senate, they'd advance the Articles of Impeachment. Pelosi seems to be in a position where she seems to be incapable of deciding whether to have a bowel movement or remain firmly ensconced on the porcelain throne.

It's like she put a gun to her own head and threatened she's gonna pull the trigger if the Republicans don't do what she says.

I agree we need something powerfully explosive to grind away at the currently unconvinced.

"We"? You're part of the TrumpHaterSquad? (half joking - you seem to be discussing this reasonably, so I'm responding in kind)

You don't find Trump overrulling the SoS and Secretary of Defense to continue holding the aid a little bit explosive? What about Bolton and Pompeo testifying to that effect?

POTUS sets foreign policy - if it can be proven that he withheld aid for the SOLE PURPOSE of personal enrichment or gain, that would be troubling to me, but even then I'd think that would be more worthy of censure or something along those lines than removal from office. Even some Democrats are pushing for that.

[Mountain Man]

Let's pretend that Pelosi is only holding back the articles because she is playing politics (in some sense she is certainly playing politics but I mean lets look at it purely from an angle of inflicting maximum pain on the resident). Wouldn't you all agree that with new bombshells emerging every day it only makes sense to wait as long as possible? This article is from 12/29 and reveal a lot of new details but most damning that

Opposition to the order from his top national security advisers was more intense than previously known. In late August, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper joined Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and John R. Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, for a previously undisclosed Oval Office meeting with the president where they tried but failed to convince him that releasing the aid was in interests of the United States.

which certainly weakens defenses that continuing to hold the aid was in the United States best interest.

So what? It's a pissing contest over international policy and not a criminal act.

[DivineOb]

I think I've pretty well tired of the whole thing.

Thanks for your response. If you're curious here's my position:

My take is just like the Republicans were out to get Clinton but impeached him for a totally valid and correct reason the Democrats are out to get Trump but are also impeaching him for a completely legit reason too. I was going through a conservative phase (it was during the time I was a professing Christian) during Clinton's impeachment so it was easier for me to support it back then but I've always thought it was fair that he was impeached. I honestly believe that a dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads to a clear conclusion in both cases but I can totally understand how starting from different preconditions could lead one down a different path.

To get things a little back on topic, has Mitch McConnell said that the Senate can start the trial without the formal delivery of the articles? It seems to me that if that were the case it would significantly strengthen his apparent bargaining position in the public sphere. I.e. how unreasonable are these Democrats, we don't even need their consent yet they come to us with demands!

[shunyadragon]

Anybody who watches the news is aware of this, Shuny. But thanks for the update.

Then there is not problem concerning the thread title " Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate" The Senate was told therefore Trump was impeached.

It is none of the House's business how the Senate conducts its business, just like it was none of the Senate's business how the House ran their sham impeachment.

Justice is the complete process, and a coordinated dismissal without a trial with witnesses. Everyone should be concerned.

[Mountain Man]

Thanks for your response. If you're curious here's my position:

My take is just like the Republicans were out to get Clinton but impeached him for a totally valid and correct reason the Democrats are out to get Trump but are also impeaching him for a completely legit reason too. I was going through a conservative phase (it was during the time I was a professing Christian) during Clinton's impeachment so it was easier for me to support it back then but I've always thought it was fair that he was impeached. I honestly believe that a dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads to a clear conclusion in both cases but I can totally understand how starting from different preconditions could lead one down a different path.

To get things a little back on topic, has Mitch McConnell said that the Senate can start the trial without the formal delivery of the articles? It seems to me that if that were the case it would significantly strengthen his apparent bargaining position in the public sphere. I.e. how unreasonable are these Democrats, we don't even need their consent yet they come to us with demands!

Bill Clinton actually broke the law when he committed perjury. This is indisputable. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Trump has broken any laws.

As for what McConnell is planning to do, no idea. He seems content to wait for the time being, although I'm sure there's probably a lot of backroom negotiations going on.

[Cow Poke]

Thanks for your response. If you're curious here's my position:

My take is just like the Republicans were out to get Clinton but impeached him for a totally valid and correct reason the Democrats are out to get Trump but are also impeaching him for a completely legit reason too.

In the case of Clinton, all the attention was on the sex, not they lying under oath, but, ok...

I was going through a conservative phase (it was during the time I was a professing Christian) during Clinton's impeachment so it was easier for me to support it back then but I've always thought it was fair that he was impeached. I honestly believe that a dispassionate assessment of the evidence leads to a clear conclusion in both cases but I can totally understand how starting from different preconditions could lead one down a different path.

But another factor is that the country is WAY more polarized now than it was during Clinton's impeachment.

To get things a little back on topic, has Mitch McConnell said that the Senate can start the trial without the formal delivery of the articles? It seems to me that if that were the case it would significantly strengthen his apparent bargaining position in the public sphere. I.e. how unreasonable are these Democrats, we don't even need their consent yet they come to us with demands!

I think the Republicans are still sending up trial balloons. I don't think they really know what they want, but I DO know they don't want Nancy dictating how they operate.