Nancy Pelosi refuses to commit to sending articles of impeachment to Senate

[roamer_1]

Invariably... 

 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I see what you are saying...

But I am rather obliged to suppose more astute machination. if for no other reason than to predict the other shoe falling IF and IN CASE there is actually a strategy here. I would not be quick to dismiss a strategic endgame. And I do not believe Pelosi to be the architect. Somebody is driving this game.

Sorry... Just me. I am always looking far (to the detriment of the near). Critical-path thinking and all. And I assume the same in an opponent. All the trouble they went to predicts another move. It feels like there is an option here, and I am just not seeing it. 

You may be right.  I'm just thinking that there are better ways to have gone about it than the one they chose if they were thinking strategically.

For example, what if they'd just censored him, and said "we're going to let the American people render the verdict on his presidency in November."  At least that would have kneecapped the argument that they're trying to subvert democracy.  It would show that they respect democracy.  They'd have looked more responsible, and more mature.  And that's probably why some Democrats were floating that idea before impeachment began.

But the hard-left couldn't be restrained, so Pelosi ended up giving in to this process that has hurt them in the polls already, and is just doing to hand McConnell a free win.  It was easily avoided...but she just couldn't. So instead, they get this half-assed impeachment and look impotent.

Maybe there's a strategy somewhere in there...but I doubt it.

[libertybele]

Rumor is circling that Trump would not be able to appoint another justice to the SCOTUS if he the impeachment 'trial' was still waiting in the Senate.

There are several ways that this could benefit the DEMS and I have no doubt that things were calculated long before they began the impeachment circus.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think it can be held for a new Senate to be seated.  It would be like passing a bill from the House in one session, then passing it in the Senate in another session.  A significant number of Senators would have to unexpectedly resign next year for them to even consider a change in the sentiment of the Senators.

[Cyber Liberty]

Rumor is circling that Trump would not be able to appoint another justice to the SCOTUS if he the impeachment 'trial' was still waiting in the Senate.

There are several ways that this could benefit the DEMS and I have no doubt that things were calculated long before they began the impeachment circus.

There's nothing preventing Trump from nominating a SCOTUS Justice in 2020 (even if there is a pending Impeachment trial), but the Rats will make a successful argument for the "Biden Rule."  Trump will still nominate somebody, but don't be surprised if it never gets scheduled for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[roamer_1]

You may be right.  I'm just thinking that there are better ways to have gone about it than the one they chose if they were thinking strategically.

Right... but that's what gives me the jitters. Criteria formed guardrails leading to this event. At any point, a backstop could have been utilized, a device constructed, but none were even attempted. NO avoidance. Either insanity or direct intention purposed this end... In which, in the case of intention, this cannot be the end intended, and there is an option to exercise... Another shoe to drop, as it were.

For example, what if they'd just censored him, and said "we're going to let the American people render the verdict on his presidency in November."  At least that would have kneecapped the argument that they're trying to subvert democracy.  It would show that they respect democracy.  They'd have looked more responsible, and more mature.  And that's probably why some Democrats were floating that idea before impeachment began.

Good thinking, but it is also limited to low fruit with limited reward. They had to predict how they would look (the players, not the pols). It looks to me like they have forgone the lesser options to construct a Sword of Damocles scenario - Or at least, that is why I would suffer this apparent and predictable end with intention. In my mind, they HAD to see this coming (again, the players, not the pols). Why continue to this end when this end is so very predictable? Echo chamber? Maybe, but unlikely to me that their strategists were so blinded.

But the hard-left couldn't be restrained, so Pelosi ended up giving in to this process that has hurt them in the polls already, and is just doing to hand McConnell a free win.  It was easily avoided...but she just couldn't. So instead, they get this half-assed impeachment and look impotent.

Maybe there's a strategy somewhere in there...but I doubt it.

Maybe you're right - It certainly happened to the Republicans over Clinton, with exactly this same result. So it is already proven to be capable of being that clueless. But usually folks would learn from such a blunder.

[Cyber Liberty]

@roamer_1

Politicians sometimes learn from their own blunders, but they never learn from the blunders of others because "the right people" didn't do it last time.

[roamer_1]

There's nothing preventing Trump from nominating a SCOTUS Justice in 2020 (even if there is a pending Impeachment trial), but the Rats will make a successful argument for the "Biden Rule."  Trump will still nominate somebody, but don't be surprised if it never gets scheduled for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That's a something - A fair prize, and perhaps to expand that thought to all judicial appointments... lock that up... But ancillary to the intent, I think. There's a bigger score here somehow, or they are just that stupid. 

[Cyber Liberty]

That's a something - A fair prize, and perhaps to expand that thought to all judicial appointments... lock that up... But ancillary to the intent, I think. There's a bigger score here somehow, or they are just that stupid. 

They may be misguided, but they are not stupid.  I vote, "bigger score."

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Politicians sometimes learn from their own blunders, but they never learn from the blunders of others because "the right people" didn't do it last time.

Right. But in opposition, one would have to allow that they HAD learned... The ONLY way this is dangerous is if there is more to come... and for that reason, I am disinclined to celebrate their abject failure. Here's where my head's on a swivel.

Maybe you're right and the whole mess in concocted by a ragtag howling mad pack of jackals led by a demented ol hag... But I think that is the front of the stage - Somebody back stage is pulling ropes and changing the scenery.

And if that is true, this is still dangerous. Sorry. Just me... Seems like a whole lot of knotholes to be drug through for no possible reason.

[berdie]

I see what you are saying...

But I am rather obliged to suppose more astute machination. if for no other reason than to predict the other shoe falling IF and IN CASE there is actually a strategy here. I would not be quick to dismiss a strategic endgame. And I do not believe Pelosi to be the architect. Somebody is driving this game.

Sorry... Just me. I am always looking far (to the detriment of the near). Critical-path thinking and all. And I assume the same in an opponent. All the trouble they went to predicts another move. It feels like there is an option here, and I am just not seeing it. 

I agree...nothing in politics is as it seems. There is an angle...I just can't figure out what it is. But I guess it will all come out in the wash.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Rumor is circling that Trump would not be able to appoint another justice to the SCOTUS if he the impeachment 'trial' was still waiting in the Senate.

Not true.  There is absolutely nothing preventing the Senate from confirming any Trump nominations right up until the moment he is removed from office.  Impeachment itself has zero legal force or effect on Trump's authority.

What some may be arguing is that a Senate trial may delay nominations simply because the Senate won't be taking up any other business while the actual trial is ongoing.  That's one reason why McConnell didn't want it to drag on for too long.  But Pelosi holding on to the impeachment just means that the Senate is open for confirmations as normal.

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree...nothing in politics is as it seems. There is an angle...I just can't figure out what it is. But I guess it will all come out in the wash.

Probably the day after which we can no longer punish somebody.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I agree...nothing in politics is as it seems. There is an angle...I just can't figure out what it is. But I guess it will all come out in the wash.

Nah, there's plenty of times it is exactly as it seems, especially when someone screws up.  That's the entire reason we get scandals.

Politicians make mistakes all the time.

[roamer_1]

What some may be arguing is that a Senate trial may delay nominations simply because the Senate won't be taking up any other business while the actual trial is ongoing.  That's one reason why McConnell didn't want it to drag on for too long.  But Pelosi holding on to the impeachment just means that the Senate is open for confirmations as normal.

Dragging feet. That's a thing. What does that buy? silk purse/sow's ear... Push it all into the new year and into the election process. What does that do?

[Lando Lincoln]

Dragging feet. That's a thing. What does that buy? silk purse/sow's ear... Push it all into the new year and into the election process. What does that do?

Perhaps Pelosi understands the poor case, poor work product the Dems have stitched together.  It is rife with hearsay, innuendo and it is absent material witness testimony.  Going to trial will expose that and maybe more.  Quite likely more.  She is looking for a magical "save" and a slow-walk is all she has at the moment. 

[DB]

That's a something - A fair prize, and perhaps to expand that thought to all judicial appointments... lock that up... But ancillary to the intent, I think. There's a bigger score here somehow, or they are just that stupid. 

Could it be a move to somehow delegitimize Barr and his coming findings?

[Hoodat]

This was a stupid move by Pelosi, so it figures that it was based on advice from Lawrence Tribe.

Agreed.  It is clear that the Dems are not ready to movd forward.  So McConnell should begin the trial 8 am tomorrow morning, which he has every right to do under Article I.  "All impeachments" means all impeachments, not just the ones that Pelosi sends over.

[bigheadfred]

The Senate should have voted BEFORE the House did. One of those "jump the snark" things.

[libertybele]

The Senate should have voted BEFORE the House did. One of those "jump the snark" things.

Not quite sure I follow ... impeachment proceedings start in the House and only the House has that authority.

[bigheadfred]

Not quite sure I follow ... impeachment proceedings start in the House and only the House has that authority.

The Senate should have had the trial and vote before the House voted for impeachment. The whole damned planet knew how the House vote would go.

I mean if you are going to completely ignore the law, the Constitution, and generally make it up as you go then bar the barn doors and burn the SOB down before the horse can get out.
 

[Fishrrman]

Hmmmmm....
Lemmmmeeeessseeee here....

The House votes articles of impeachment, but then withholds them from delivery to their proper destination ?

Call this for what it is:
Impeachmentus Interruptus !!

[240B]

The most confusing part of this to me is that Pelosi is playing this as if she has the upper hand.
She is trying to extort the Senate to let her set up the Senate trial.
But...but...what ammunition does she have? How does she imagine that McConnell will come crawling to her?
I don't understand how she thinks that she is in the power position.
There is nothing to motivate McConnell to come grovelling to Pelosi.
But she seems to think that she has the puppet strings. Why?
This is her mess. She owns it. McConnell has nothing to do with it and no money in the pot.
Why would he care what she does with her own shitshow.
He is certainly not going to jump in and save her from her own fiasco.
But she thinks he will. Another bizarre chapter in an already surreal boondoggle.

[sneakypete]

The most confusing part of this to me is that Pelosi is playing this as if she has the upper hand.

@240B

Seems to me to be more of a case of the impeachment is playing HER,and she doesn't have the first clue as to what she needs to do about it to get it under control.

IT is playing HER.
 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The most confusing part of this to me is that Pelosi is playing this as if she has the upper hand.
She is trying to extort the Senate to let her set up the Senate trial.
But...but...what ammunition does she have? How does she imagine that McConnell will come crawling to her?
I don't understand how she thinks that she is in the power position.
There is nothing to motivate McConnell to come grovelling to Pelosi.
But she seems to think that she has the puppet strings. Why?
This is her mess. She owns it. McConnell has nothing to do with it and no money in the pot.
Why would he care what she does with her own shitshow.
He is certainly not going to jump in and save her from her own fiasco.
But she thinks he will. Another bizarre chapter in an already surreal boondoggle.

There is no impeachment if there are no Articles of Impeachment sent to the Senate for consideration, as per the Constitution.

Like a bill voted on in the House that never leaves the House and sent to the Senate for consideration.  Is it really a bill if it never gets passed along for Senate approval?

I think not.