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

[Maj. Bill Martin]

So what is Mitch waiting for?


He's gonna cave.

My guess - and my hope - is that he's just letting the political winds batter Pelosi a bit, to make it absolutely clear she's not sending the Articles.  If she doesn't send them in the first week of January after the recess, my guess is that he acts.  I don't think he'll let an impeachment sit over Trump's head indefinitely, unresolved.

[Fishrrman]

How to handle Nutty Nancy's non-deliverable "impeachment":

In January, the first order of Senate business should be a request for the immediate delivery of the paperwork from the House. Kind of like a request for "service of process". I'm only guessing, but I sense that if the Republican Senate pushes this through quickly on a partisan vote, and if the time by which to comply is limited to, say, 24-48 hours, Pelosi will balk and won't respond.

That's fine. Actually, that's what we want.

The NEXT order of business should be a vote by the Senators as to whether it's proper to proceed -- without paperwork, without "House impeachment managers", and [most importantly] without evidence. Consider this "the arraignment", if you like.

Without sufficient evidence (of course, there never WAS any), the next vote by the Senate should be to DISMISS the impeachment on its face, as insufficient to proceed. It's important that the documentation for such vote include that impeachment proceedings can only proceed upon the introduction of proper evidence, and that there has been none in this case. If need be, there should also be a vote to summarily acquit Mr. Trump of any supposed charges that may be pending before the Senate at that moment.

Why do this?
Because the object should be not only to "acquit" Mr. Trump, but more importantly to deliver a REBUKE to the House for pushing frivolous charges under the guise of "impeachment". The goal here is to restore impeachment as a Constitutional process that is necessary for the prosecution of actual "high crimes and misdemeanors", as distinguished from anti-Trump hatred.

Edit:
Unless such a rebuke to the House is made by the Senate, expect them to "impeach" again... and again...

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Here, as I comprehend it, is the crux of our disagreement.   

1. ONLY the House can conclude impeachment.
2. ANYONE, including the Senate, can assert that impeachment is concluded once the House votes to impeach.

I think both bullet statements are true, you seem to only accept the first...while the constitution itself asserts that Impeachment occurs when a majority of House members vote for it, an act which in and of itself imposes an obligation on the Senate to conduct a trial.

Nowhere in the constitution is their a preamble to the directive of conducting a trial that asserts transmission of such a vote must be made formally, or by a delivery of paper articles from House to Senate. The Constitution imposes a trial obligation in the very instant an impeachment vote concludes in the House. Period.

Ok, I have tried to relook at my position and find myself finally gravitating to yours on point 2.

I have always believed that any citizen can interpret the Constitution's words on equal footing.  Yet some on this forum, predominantly lawyers, believe judicial remains the ONLY entity that can make that interpretation.

It continues to bother me that one can find no instances where the Senate acted spontaneously on any action which the House concludes in similar fashion as in this impeachment matter.

[Cyber Liberty]

It continues to bother me that one can find no instances where the Senate acted spontaneously on any action which the House concludes in similar fashion as in this impeachment matter.

This is a very salient point.  It would be unprecedented for McConnell to simply "deem" it passed and proceed to trial.  I just can't imagine it, and don't have to imagine it because all the pressure is on Pelosi and her chicanery.

The Rats are going to be the ones to give on this.  It only gets even more difficult for them from here on, WRT Impeachment.  I want it to get so hard on them they don't even think about trying to push more Articles.  The whole damned world snapped to when she first intoned it is a National Emergency, literally a crime in progress, then promptly locked the papers in her desk drawer rather than send it to McConnell's tender mercies in the Senate. 

Even garden slugs can see the Rats messed this up, big time.

[Mesaclone]

Ok, I have tried to relook at my position and find myself finally gravitating to yours on point 2.

I have always believed that any citizen can interpret the Constitution's words on equal footing.  Yet some on this forum, predominantly lawyers, believe judicial remains the ONLY entity that can make that interpretation.

It continues to bother me that one can find no instances where the Senate acted spontaneously on any action which the House concludes in similar fashion as in this impeachment matter.

You won't find such instances because a Speaker has never attempted the ethereal act of "holding back" a Presidential impeachment (or any other impeachment that I could find) after it has been concluded in the House. We are all in uncharted waters on this.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You won't find such instances because a Speaker has never attempted the ethereal act of "holding back" a Presidential impeachment (or any other impeachment that I could find) after it has been concluded in the House. We are all in uncharted waters on this.

Not talking about impeachment.

Talking about ANY actions performed by the House.

In the same manner you conclude there is in the Constitution the absence of transmittal actions from the House on impeachment, that also holds true for other matters whether it is the budget or any other legislation.

So why does not the Senate ever wait for the House votes to reach it prior to considerations of any bills?

[Mesaclone]

Not talking about impeachment.

Talking about ANY actions performed by the House.

In the same manner you conclude there is in the Constitution the absence of transmittal actions from the House on impeachment, that also holds true for other matters whether it is the budget or any other legislation.

So why does not the Senate ever wait for the House votes to reach it prior to considerations of any bills?

Legislation bears no Constitutional similarity to Impeachment. Both are separate Constitutionally directed actions and the rules of one do not bear analogy to the rules of the other.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Legislation bears no Constitutional similarity to Impeachment. Both are separate Constitutionally directed actions and the rules of one do not bear analogy to the rules of the other.

Not making myself clear apparently.  Am making a comparison of two actions that are similarly silent in the Constitution/

The House passes a bill.  It is transmitted to the Senate before the Senate actis on it.  Even though the Constitution is silent on this transmittal being necessary.

The House passes impeachment.  It is transmitted to the Senate before the Senate acts on it.  Even though the Constitution is silent on this transmittal being necessary.

[Mesaclone]

Not making myself clear apparently.  Am making a comparison of two actions that are similarly silent in the Constitution/

The House passes a bill.  It is transmitted to the Senate before the Senate actis on it.  Even though the Constitution is silent on this transmittal being necessary.

The House passes impeachment.  It is transmitted to the Senate before the Senate acts on it.  Even though the Constitution is silent on this transmittal being necessary.

Transmittal is done by rule and tradition even with legislation. From the perspective of the Senate, it would serve no purpose to take up legislation without a transmittal as the process generally involves joint negotiations between House and Senate to complete the item in question in a way that both caucuses will support. A bill is a collaboration between House and Senate requiring the advocacy of both before it can become law. 

Impeachment requires no such collaboration and the two roles are distinct and unique to each body. Each body conducts its Constitutional task independently and without influence or direction from the other body. The House has completed its role...the constitution tasks it ONLY with Impeaching, not transmitting said Impeachment. The enactor for the Senate is specifically the act of Impeaching...once that occurs the Senate is MANDATED to hold a trial.

There is no "out" for the Senate because the House doesn't transmit or deliver documents. This is wise on the part of the Founding Fathers as it prevents the House from doing what it is now attempting to do...influence the Senate's Constitutional obligation and conduct of a trial. This is intended, rather obviously I think, to also ensure Impeachment is not used as a "political" weapon to tar a President without allowing him a fair defense in a Senate trial venue.

[Smokin Joe]

Pelosi is transparently holding out for greater proximity to the election. One of the Democrat talking points will be that we can't re-elect a POTUS who is tied up in an impeachment trial in the Senate, and the release date to the Senate will be timed so that procedural motions, etc. by the minority there can drag this out past November 2020.

That's what they're after, and that is NOT what the Founders intended.
(Should someone be unfit for office, their timely removal is important to the Republic.)

I will note that despite the entire Watergate thing, Nixon was reelected.

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Transmittal is done by rule and tradition even with legislation. From the perspective of the Senate, it would serve no purpose to take up legislation without a transmittal as the process generally involves joint negotiations between House and Senate to complete the item in question in a way that both caucuses will support. A bill is a collaboration between House and Senate requiring the advocacy of both before it can become law. 

Impeachment requires no such collaboration and the two roles are distinct and unique to each body. Each body conducts its Constitutional task independently and without influence or direction from the other body. The House has completed its role...the constitution tasks it ONLY with Impeaching, not transmitting said Impeachment. The enactor for the Senate is specifically the act of Impeaching...once that occurs the Senate is MANDATED to hold a trial.

There is no "out" for the Senate because the House doesn't transmit or deliver documents. This is wise on the part of the Founding Fathers as it prevents the House from doing what it is now attempting to do...influence the Senate's Constitutional obligation and conduct of a trial. This is intended, rather obviously I think, to also ensure Impeachment is not used as a "political" weapon to tar a President without allowing him a fair defense in a Senate trial venue.

This is nonsense.

Of course the House influences the Senate as it sends managers over to serve as prosecutors in the trial in the Senate.

And of course it is a political weapon as well as a Constitutional mandate.  Ever hear of a President Andrew Johnson?

[Cyber Liberty]

This is nonsense.

Of course the House influences the Senate as it sends managers over to serve as prosecutors in the trial in the Senate.

And of course it is a political weapon as well as a Constitutional mandate.  Ever hear of a President Andrew Johnson?

The constitution is silent on Impeachment Managers, too.  Theoretically, The Senate can have an Impeachment Trial without them, and may just do that if Pelosi won't name Managers.  This game of Pelosi's carries risk for her side.

I think McConnell should treat Impeachment and the Bidens as separate matters, and start dragging witnesses in to testify about Biden's Ukraine chicanery in January, with or without an Impeachment Trial.

[AL]

The impeachment vote is part of the Congressional Record, I'd think that would be enough for McConnell to act.  One things for sure, McConnell needs to ignore any pushing by Pelosi on anything.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The constitution is silent on Impeachment Managers, too.  Theoretically, The Senate can have an Impeachment Trial without them, and may just do that if Pelosi won't name Managers.  This game of Pelosi's carries risk for her side.

I think McConnell should treat Impeachment and the Bidens as separate matters, and start dragging witnesses in to testify about Biden's Ukraine chicanery in January, with or without an Impeachment Trial.

I was commenting on the refrain "This is wise on the part of the Founding Fathers as it prevents the House from doing what it is now attempting to do...influence the Senate's Constitutional obligation and conduct of a trial."

The House most certainly influenced the last impeachment as it sent prosecutors to the Senate trial.  To say they do not influence is ludicrous.

[Smokin Joe]

The impeachment vote is part of the Congressional Record, I'd think that would be enough for McConnell to act.  One things for sure, McConnell needs to ignore any pushing by Pelosi on anything.

I agree. He needs to run his own show and not give her any more status than her position as Speaker would ordinarily accrue.

[Cyber Liberty]

I agree. He needs to run his own show and not give her any more status than her position as Speaker would ordinarily accrue.

...which is exactly what Turtle's been doing so far.