The Senate controls starting the impeachment trial...not Pelosi

[Mesaclone]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/giancarlo-canaparo-pelosi-cant-stop-trumps-trial-in-the-senate

Let’s start with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2 states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Long story short, nowhere in the articles does it address the process of moving an impeachment from the House to the Senate. Such a process is ONLY delineated in the Senate's own rules. A simple majority vote can change the rule that directs the Senate to wait for the House to send managers...and that will happen if Pelosi holds out for too long on this. Once that rule is changed, the Senate trial can begin with or without House managers presenting  their case...my guess is they would send managers the very minute the rule is changed.

Of course, McConnell knows he holds the "Trump" card regarding Senate rules and can play it at his leisure...in the short time he seems happy to let Pelosi twist in the wind and look absurd.

[Hoodat]

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is guilty of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress on this one.

[Mesaclone]

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is guilty of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress on this one.

At this point, with her Left wing seemingly dictating action, not sure she isn't just "along for the ride". The most disturbing thing is that there actually is a "wing" that is even further Left than she herself is. Dems have gone off the edge of the cliff ideologically...never a healthy thing for an American political party.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/giancarlo-canaparo-pelosi-cant-stop-trumps-trial-in-the-senate

Let’s start with the Constitution. Article 1, Section 2 states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Long story short, nowhere in the articles does it address the process of moving an impeachment from the House to the Senate. Such a process is ONLY delineated in the Senate's own rules. A simple majority vote can change the rule that directs the Senate to wait for the House to send managers...and that will happen if Pelosi holds out for too long on this. Once that rule is changed, the Senate trial can begin with or without House managers presenting  their case...my guess is they would send managers the very minute the rule is changed.

Of course, McConnell knows he holds the "Trump" card regarding Senate rules and can play it at his leisure...in the short time he seems happy to let Pelosi twist in the wind and look absurd.

I wasn't aware of that Senate rule -- thanks.  I agree, McConnell will change that at some point so that the Dems can't keep it hanging out there forever.

[libertybele]

I wasn't aware of that Senate rule -- thanks.  I agree, McConnell will change that at some point so that the Dems can't keep it hanging out there forever.

Not quite following here as obviously the Senate does not have the Articles of Impeachment that have been drafted against Trump, so how can they hold a trial on articles of impeachment that they don't have?  Sure the Senate makes the impeachment trial rules but with nothing in front of them, what would they be ruling on?

[RetBobbyMI]

Senate cant take up Impeachment until the House transmits the bill, which Pelosi is sitting on.  So...the senate should just go about the business of approving justices as fast as possible.  Load up the courts with conservative judges. Especially the appeals courts.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Not quite following here as obviously the Senate does not have the Articles of Impeachment that have been drafted against Trump, so how can they hold a trial on articles of impeachment that they don't have?  Sure the Senate makes the impeachment trial rules but with nothing in front of them, what would they be ruling on?

They could amend the rules to say that the trial date can be scheduled before the article are received, but that they must be received before the trial begins.  And if the trial date comes and the articles have not been forwarded by the House, the entire impeachment is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Alternatively, the Senate could ignore the entire issue of the Articles being "sent over", and say that the trial will proceed based on the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, which are a matter of public record.

[Hoodat]

I wasn't aware of that Senate rule -- thanks.  I agree, McConnell will change that at some point so that the Dems can't keep it hanging out there forever.

The rule is already there:

Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

'All' includes impeachments that the House refuses to type up and send over.   McConnell can move forward now.  And if the House balks, then we can consider Trump to not yet be impeached.  Make Pelosi be the one to take it back.

[Mesaclone]

Senate cant take up Impeachment until the House transmits the bill, which Pelosi is sitting on.  So...the senate should just go about the business of approving justices as fast as possible.  Load up the courts with conservative judges. Especially the appeals courts.

That is precisely incorrect @RetBobbyMI

This is not a piece of legislation and the process should not be confused with the legislative process. Remember, none of this is really reviewable by the courts...there is no judicial power to override the House and its process nor the Senate and its method of trial.

The Constitution simply says the House conducts impeachment, which it has. The Senate may then conduct the trial in any way it so chooses...whether the House elects to send managers to present the case or not. The only thing limiting that action now is a Senate rule, which can be erased and re-written as needed by the majority.

The rule can be amended to simply say the Senate will commence a trial within 30 days of the House voting for Impeachment...whether articles are presented or not...and would likely invite the House to present its case, or not present a case (at the House's discretion). Should the House choose not to present a case, the Senators would then vote on either immediate dismissal of the charges...OR...decide to present witnesses as the Senate Majority leader sees fit...and THEN vote.

Pelosi and the House have zero say in this process and it will proceed precisely as Mitch McConnell decides.

[Cyber Liberty]

They could amend the rules to say that the trial date can be scheduled before the article are received, but that they must be received before the trial begins.  And if the trial date comes and the articles have not been forwarded by the House, the entire impeachment is dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Alternatively, the Senate could ignore the entire issue of the Articles being "sent over", and say that the trial will proceed based on the Articles of Impeachment approved by the House, which are a matter of public record.

The notion of "waiting for the transmittal of documents" is as quaint as waiting for a computer printout of a file, so you can scan the printout into a new computer across town.  It makes no sense anymore, in the modern now a-go-go times.  For crying out loud, we can all see every jot and diddle in the Articles online, and as you say, it's public record. 

Just "deem" them "transmitted" and go.  Who needs cherry boxes? 

[RetBobbyMI]

That is precisely incorrect @RetBobbyMI

This is not a piece of legislation and the process should not be confused with the legislative process. Remember, none of this is really reviewable by the courts...there is no judicial power to override the House and its process nor the Senate and its method of trial.

The Constitution simply says the House conducts impeachment, which it has. The Senate may then conduct the trial in any way it so chooses...whether the House elects to send managers to present the case or not. The only thing limiting that action now is a Senate rule, which can be erased and re-written as needed by the majority.

The rule can be amended to simply say the Senate will commence a trial within 30 days of the House voting for Impeachment...whether articles are presented or not...and would likely invite the House to present its case, or not present a case (at the House's discretion). Should the House choose not to present a case, the Senators would then vote on either immediate dismissal of the charges...OR...decide to present witnesses as the Senate Majority leader sees fit...and THEN vote.

Pelosi and the House have zero say in this process and it will proceed precisely as Mitch McConnell decides.

Don't think it works that way.  SOMETHING has to be presented to the Senate or it has no case to try.  It cant try impeachment cases that have not been submitted by the House (a bill).

[austingirl]

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is guilty of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress on this one.

But as the prayerful and somber Empress of America, she thinks she can.

[Wingnut]

[Fishrrman]

Once they return from Christmas recess, Mr. McConnell should call for a full vote to wit:
The House will be provided 48 hours to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate for consideration and trial.

This should pass with a majority vote.

The democrat-communists will go before the cameras and raise a ruckus.
Chances are they'll try to stall and do nothing.

In that case, Mr. McConnell should call for immediate vote of the Senate to convict or acquit Mr. Trump based on the evidence that has been placed before them.

Aye or nay...?

[Cyber Liberty]

Once they return from Christmas recess, Mr. McConnell should call for a full vote to wit:
The House will be provided 48 hours to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate for consideration and trial.

This should pass with a majority vote.

The democrat-communists will go before the cameras and raise a ruckus.
Chances are they'll try to stall and do nothing.

In that case, Mr. McConnell should call for immediate vote of the Senate to convict or acquit Mr. Trump based on the evidence that has been placed before them.

Aye or nay...?

Wait until just before the IA Caucuses.  With any luck we could keep the 5 Rat Senators running for President sitting in the Senate for weeks.

[Wingnut]

[Mesaclone]

Don't think it works that way.  SOMETHING has to be presented to the Senate or it has no case to try.  It cant try impeachment cases that have not been submitted by the House (a bill).

First, an impeachment is not a "bill".

Second, please cite where the constitution asserts that impeach must be formally "submitted" to the Senate...let me help...you will not find it there. It simply states the House will impeach, and gives no guidance or trigger for when/how the Senate chooses to take up that impeachment in a trial. It quite directly states that if the House impeaches, the Senate WILL conduct a trial...not may or should...WILL.

The Senate can absolutely assert that an impeachment was completed...and the charges publicly published...and that that is sufficient to trigger a trial. 51 votes are all it takes to make that assertion. Should they make such a decision, understand that it is not judicially reviewable...it is a delineated power of the Senate that no other branch can mitigate or dispute.

[Hoodat]

The Senate can absolutely assert that an impeachment was completed...and the charges publicly published...and that that is sufficient to trigger a trial.

Absolutely correct.  "All impeachments" means all impeachments.  The House took a vote on impeachment.  It passed.  Now the Senate's turn.  There is nothing more for the House to do.

McConnell should push it forward to the loud protests of unprepared and unequipped House prosecutors.  And Republicans will say, "What's the problem, Pelosi?  Having trouble coming up with evidence?"

[Mesaclone]

Absolutely correct.  "All impeachments" means all impeachments.  The House took a vote on impeachment.  It passed.  Now the Senate's turn.  There is nothing more for the House to do.

McConnell should push it forward to the loud protests of unprepared and unequipped House prosecutors.  And Republicans will say, "What's the problem, Pelosi?  Having trouble coming up with evidence?"

Well, he does first have to amend the current Senate rules...but that can be done in a day. And, of course, the House can ignore it and not send managers to present their case...but who cares, let 'em.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Don't think it works that way.  SOMETHING has to be presented to the Senate or it has no case to try.  It cant try impeachment cases that have not been submitted by the House (a bill).

The Articles of Impeachment and the vote are public record,  officially recorded and published in both the House's journal, and on its own website.   The impeachment is "official," so the Senate already has full access to the only requires documents.  They' could just take judicial notice of the impeachment, and proceed.

[Cyber Liberty]

The Articles of Impeachment and the vote are public record,  officially recorded and published in both the House's journal, and on its own website.   The impeachment is "official," so the Senate already has full access to the only requires documents.  They' could just take judicial notice of the impeachment, and proceed.

It's on the Rats if they don't want to provide Managers.

[Hoodat]

It's on the Rats if they don't want to provide Managers.

Exactly!  Call their bluff, beginning Monday morning. 

[The_Reader_David]

Okay folks.  Let's get this straight.

(1) The House has voted to impeach President Trump.

(2) Impeaching the President (or any other Federal official) is the act of transmitting the charges on which the official has been impeached to the Senate for trial.

(3) President Trump has not been impeached, this will only happen when the decision of the House is implemented by transmitting the charges to the Senate.

(4) The document containing the charged which is transmitted to the Senate is called "a bill of impeachment".

(5) What's the hurry? The closer to the election the Senate trial, complete with Ukrainian witnesses Giuliani has scared up to prove that Trump's conversation with Zelinsky was perfectly legitimate, the better.

[Fishrrman]

Mesaclone wrote:
"Well, he does first have to amend the current Senate rules...but that can be done in a day. And, of course, the House can ignore it and not send managers to present their case...but who cares, let 'em."

See my post 13 above.

When it reconvenes, the Senate should demand (by vote) that the House "deliver" the articles. Give them 48 hours to "walk them over". But at that point, say nothing more.

Chances are, Pelosi will balk at said demand.

After the deadline has been passed, the Senate should proceed to the equivalent of an "arraignment".
That is, hold a vote to decide if there should be a trial, based on "the evidence" presented.

But of course, there will have been NO "evidence" proffered -- nothing delivered.

And then, a followup vote should be held DISMISS the charges, ending the "impeachment" and acquitting the president of same.

[Mesaclone]

Mesaclone wrote:
"Well, he does first have to amend the current Senate rules...but that can be done in a day. And, of course, the House can ignore it and not send managers to present their case...but who cares, let 'em."

See my post 13 above.

When it reconvenes, the Senate should demand (by vote) that the House "deliver" the articles. Give them 48 hours to "walk them over". But at that point, say nothing more.

Chances are, Pelosi will balk at said demand.

After the deadline has been passed, the Senate should proceed to the equivalent of an "arraignment".
That is, hold a vote to decide if there should be a trial, based on "the evidence" presented.

But of course, there will have been NO "evidence" proffered -- nothing delivered.

And then, a followup vote should be held DISMISS the charges, ending the "impeachment" and acquitting the president of same.

I honestly don't think there's any reason to hurry...let the Dems look ridiculous over the Christmas break and into the New Year. Excellent time to have the "Turtle" in charge, he can slow walk this whole thing right into the early Dem primaries...making sure to call key witnesses like Hunter Biden, the faux-Whistleblower, Brennan, Schiff's staffers (Schiff as a member of the House can't be called directly), and the former AG of Ukraine who was fired on Biden's orders.