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

[Bigun]

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.

I agree and so does one of the DEMOCRAT "expert" impeachment witnesses.

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

[Cyber Liberty]

As far as the "public" is concerned, Trump was impeached when the Rats got 218 votes Wednesday evening on Article 1.  Our understanding of the technicalities will be ignored, as usual.

McConnell was dealt a good hand, and I hope he plays it strong.

[roamer_1]

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.

Alright... But where's the backstop? strategies are not singlular in their path, hardly ever... Criteria have a tendency of changing, which changes the contour of the ground opening different pitfalls, and favoring new options. ... to the point that a new direction becomes inevitable. Sooner or later you have to stop beating a dead horse.

Strategy wonks LET it get this bad? Makes no sense. That's my thing. They pay people money *not* to end up like this.

[roamer_1]

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

How though? It's buttoned up, and the vote is cast. I could see leaving it open and stalling, hoping to, for instance, amend the charges because of Barr, or any other niggly bits that are easy pickins... But it's already locked up. What sense in not passing the ball?

[roamer_1]

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.

IKnowRight??? It's crazy town! Where's the beef? What's the gain? It cannot be a bluff, because as you said, there's no investment by McConnell. Why would he give a sh*t if she sits on it?

[roamer_1]

@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.

@sneakypete - I don't think this is her show... and even if it is, the DNC has about an acre of policy wonks and strategy wonks predicting and back-filling every move. 

Though you may be right... If she has the bit in her teeth... The decisions made that led us here align with the derangement of an Alzhiemer's patient. So there is that.

I just can't imagine them letting her mess it up this bad.

[dfwgator]

[roamer_1]

LOL!

[XenaLee]

@sneakypete - I don't think this is her show... and even if it is, the DNC has about an acre of policy wonks and strategy wonks predicting and back-filling every move. 

Though you may be right... If she has the bit in her teeth... The decisions made that led us here align with the derangement of an Alzhiemer's patient. So there is that.

I just can't imagine them letting her mess it up this bad.

If she did, that might explain her weird facial expressions....lol.

But seriously, I don't think she is the one calliing the shots.  I think her string-handler, behind the curtain, is orchestrating the show.   The reason it is nothing but chaos and nonsensical, illogical BS is....

that is how the radical left rolls.   It's them all over.

[FeelNoPain]

      IKnowRight??? It's crazy town! Where's the beef? What's the gain? It cannot be a bluff, because as you said, there's no investment by McConnell. Why would he give a sh*t if she sits on it?

I don't know how this gambit is going to turn out for the Dems, but I like trying to guess (usually poorly--lol) along with both parties thinking:

1) Aren't the Dems betting that not being able to get favorable closure/exoneration in the Senate will get under Trump's skin and that he is too undisciplined not to react--poorly?

2) What is McConnell's reaction if the Dems start an intensive public campaign repeating variations of the same mantra over and over,
                   "If they are innocent, why is the Trump Administration scared to testify under oath?"
                   "Innocent people are willing to testify under oath."
                   "Trump is guilty as hell--that's why he wont testify under oath."
                   "Don't the American people deserve the truth? Testify under oath."
                   "Trump promised transparency--testify under oath."
                   "Prove the impeachment was a hoax, a sham. Testify under oath."
                   "We just want them to testify under oath to ensure the truth. Why are they against the truth?"

3. They are trying to get the vulnerable GOP senators (Collins, Gardner, McSally, Tillis) uncomfortable with having to defend a seeming "cover up" for an obstructive president while running for re-election.

How does McConnell respond?
                   

[roamer_1]

If she did, that might explain her weird facial expressions....lol.

But seriously, I don't think she is the one calliing the shots.  I think her string-handler, behind the curtain, is orchestrating the show.   The reason it is nothing but chaos and nonsensical, illogical BS is....

that is how the radical left rolls.   It's them all over.

It makes no sense at all... And leaves the dems the bagholder. And they intentionally brought it to this end.

[roamer_1]

I don't know how this gambit is going to turn out for the Dems, but I like trying to guess (usually poorly--lol) along with both parties thinking:

1) Aren't the Dems betting that not being able to get favorable closure/exoneration in the Senate will get under Trump's skin and that he is too undisciplined not to react--poorly?

2) What is McConnell's reaction if the Dems start an intensive public campaign repeating variations of the same mantra over and over,
                   "If they are innocent, why is the Trump Administration scared to testify under oath?"
                   "Innocent people are willing to testify under oath."
                   "Trump is guilty as hell--that's why he wont testify under oath."
                   "Don't the American people deserve the truth? Testify under oath."
                   "Trump promised transparency--testify under oath."
                   "Prove the impeachment was a hoax, a sham. Testify under oath."
                   "We just want them to testify under oath to ensure the truth. Why are they against the truth?"

All of these - ALL of them, would make sense if they left the inquiry open... They could literally drag it right past the election and into the next congress if they wanted to... But the inquiry is closed and the vote is cast... And in that any percentage in tail dragging just vanishes.

3. They are trying to get the vulnerable GOP senators (Collins, Gardner, McSally, Tillis) uncomfortable with having to defend a seeming "cover up" for an obstructive president while running for re-election.

How does McConnell respond?
                   

This has some chops... It is the only thing I can think of that has a mechanical purpose - Pushing the thing 60/90 days shoves it right into the election season. But to what end? It will have waxed stale in the cupboard by then. It will look entirely political (as if anyone can't see that already), and gaming those supposed vulnerable senators will strengthen them with the electorate - pissed more about the gaming than any weakness in the candidates.

It makes no sense, no matter which way I turn it.
 

[FeelNoPain]

@roamer_1
It makes no sense, no matter which way I turn it.

Got ya. Thanks.

[libertybele]

I look at the delay this way as well; it gives the GOP time to get key people ready. Hopefully the GOP is consulting the best Consitutional lawyers and scholars (Ted Cruz anyone)?

According to a Dem witness who is a Harvard Law professor; : 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,” Feldman wrote....

....Pelosi signaled late Wednesday after the House passed articles of impeachment—on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—that she wanted reassurances that the Senate would hold a fair trial, likely involving certain Democrat-sought witnesses, before sending over the articles.

First of all she has to figure out who to send, how to strengthen their weak case and most importantly she's trying to keep the ball in her court.

[Cyber Liberty]

@roamer_1  The only thing I can think of is "Impeach" was the end goal.  They care nothing about "Convicting".

[roamer_1]

I look at the delay this way as well; it gives the GOP time to get key people ready. Hopefully the GOP is consulting the best Consitutional lawyers and scholars (Ted Cruz anyone)?

Sure... Use the extra time - But I don't know how. The reality of both charges will take about 20 minutes to dismiss... And that includes the oath, the prayer, and the pledge... Though I fully expect the Pubbies to twist the knife, bringing forward the witnesses that were not allowed in the House, and etc.. Pelosi has set this up to be the perfect cudgel AGAINST the House Dems, just before the season kicks off. The Pubbies will beat them silly with it.

That's what does not make sense.

According to a Dem witness who is a Harvard Law professor; : 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,” Feldman wrote....

....Pelosi signaled late Wednesday after the House passed articles of impeachment—on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—that she wanted reassurances that the Senate would hold a fair trial, likely involving certain Democrat-sought witnesses, before sending over the articles.

Democrat sought witnesses have all already been aired without rebuttal in the House. This whole line of intention is a head fake. It is what they are saying, but I don't believe it... And they have no leverage to manipulate it in the senate... NONE.

First of all she has to figure out who to send, how to strengthen their weak case and most importantly she's trying to keep the ball in her court.

Alright. But the only reason for that, after the deal is closed and locked down (which it is), is to crater the deal. Perhaps there is an angle in the idea that they bury it and whine how they would get bad faith from the senate... But that will, in effect and literally, nullify their own impeachment effort.

I don't get it.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1  The only thing I can think of is "Impeach" was the end goal.  They care nothing about "Convicting".

That is incredibly short-sighted on their part. 

[libertybele]

Sure... Use the extra time - But I don't know how. The reality of both charges will take about 20 minutes to dismiss... And that includes the oath, the prayer, and the pledge... Though I fully expect the Pubbies to twist the knife, bringing forward the witnesses that were not allowed in the House, and etc.. Pelosi has set this up to be the perfect cudgel AGAINST the House Dems, just before the season kicks off. The Pubbies will beat them silly with it.

That's what does not make sense.

[qupte]
According to a Dem witness who is a Harvard Law professor; : 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,” Feldman wrote....

....Pelosi signaled late Wednesday after the House passed articles of impeachment—on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress—that she wanted reassurances that the Senate would hold a fair trial, likely involving certain Democrat-sought witnesses, before sending over the articles.


Democrat sought witnesses have all already been aired without rebuttal in the House. This whole line of intention is a head fake. It is what they are saying, but I don't believe it... And they have no leverage to manipulate it in the senate... NONE.

Alright. But the only reason for that, after the deal is closed and locked down (which it is), is to crater the deal. Perhaps there is an angle in the idea that they bury it and whine how they would get bad faith from the senate... But that will, in effect and literally, nullify their own impeachment effort.

I don't get it.

I agree with you; a lot doesn't make sense on the surface. There obviously is a lot we don't know or aren't taking into consideration; think of all the hearsay testimony and silence on identification of the whistleblower -- perhaps it is now that the DEMS will bring about further testimony and the whistleblower will be identified if they allow him to testify, etc., etc.  Nancy may be touched with dementia and struggle with a set of false teeth, but she is no dummy and my guess is she hasn't played her full hand yet.

IMHO, reporters, constitutional scholars, and lawyers are saying that Nancy made a fool out of herself and the DEMS did themselves a disservice and have no case, but Nancy doesn't do things unless she's sure she's going to win after all she's not going to tarnish her reputation over such a weak case as the GOP is claiming.  Just my opinion here.

Schumer has also stated that he has information on Pence. 

Perhaps Nancy wants reassurances that they will be allowed to produce their evidence and witnesses and the GOP is not willing to do so.

One thing is for certain, Pelosi wants to make sure that the ball is in her court before proceeding any further.

[bilo]

@roamer_1  The only thing I can think of is "Impeach" was the end goal.  They care nothing about "Convicting".

I think you're on the right track. The whole mantra about a "fair trial" in the Senate with the witnesses they want was not going to happen, but on the campaign trail they have a message. Give us the Senate and we will hold a fair open trial.

They have nothing else to run on. Odds are they will hold on to the House. Now they motivate their base to try and get the Senate.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@roamer_1  The only thing I can think of is "Impeach" was the end goal.  They care nothing about "Convicting".

Maybe the leaders don't but the base wants Trump REMOVED and will be satisfied with nothing less.  Nancy will feel the pressure.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I agree with you; a lot doesn't make sense on the surface. There obviously is a lot we don't know or aren't taking into consideration; think of all the hearsay testimony and silence on identification of the whistleblower -- perhaps it is now that the DEMS will bring about further testimony and the whistleblower will be identified if they allow him to testify, etc., etc.  Nancy may be touched with dementia and struggle with a set of false teeth, but she is no dummy and my guess is she hasn't played her full hand yet.

IMHO, reporters, constitutional scholars, and lawyers are saying that Nancy made a fool out of herself and the DEMS did themselves a disservice and have no case, but Nancy doesn't do things unless she's sure she's going to win after all she's not going to tarnish her reputation over such a weak case as the GOP is claiming.  Just my opinion here.

Schumer has also stated that he has information on Pence. 

Perhaps Nancy wants reassurances that they will be allowed to produce their evidence and witnesses and the GOP is not willing to do so.

One thing is for certain, Pelosi wants to make sure that the ball is in her court before proceeding any further.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that if both Trump and Pence are removed from office, Nancy becomes President.

Trump has been voted on, and if dirt of any sort on Pence can be dug up, he too will be impeached by the runaway House.

Could they both be removed from office?  That seems far-fetched, but strange things are now happening already.

The Dems have a strategy, and we just haven't got it all figured out as yet.

[Lando Lincoln]

Alright... But where's the backstop? strategies are not singlular in their path, hardly ever... Criteria have a tendency of changing, which changes the contour of the ground opening different pitfalls, and favoring new options. ... to the point that a new direction becomes inevitable. Sooner or later you have to stop beating a dead horse.

Strategy wonks LET it get this bad? Makes no sense. That's my thing. They pay people money *not* to end up like this.

I understand and agree with your point.  I can offer theories and none of them arrive at the end.   

[libertybele]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that if both Trump and Pence are removed from office, Nancy becomes President.

Trump has been voted on, and if dirt of any sort on Pence can be dug up, he too will be impeached by the runaway House.

Could they both be removed from office?  That seems far-fetched, but strange things are now happening already.

The Dems have a strategy, and we just haven't got it all figured out as yet.

Yes it is possible that both Pence and Trump can be impeached, but can they be impeached simultaneously?  I don't know. Perhaps that is why the House is waiting.  Perhaps after the Christmas break they intend to bring up articles of impeachment against Pence, then hand deliver impeachment articles on both the President and VP to the Senate. That scenario to me makes some sense in light of what we are witnessing; especially with Schumer's comment that they have a witness to  Pence's actions. I saw the video and he seemed absolutely serious and quite confident.

[roamer_1]

Nancy may be touched with dementia and struggle with a set of false teeth, but she is no dummy and my guess is she hasn't played her full hand yet.

IMHO, reporters, constitutional scholars, and lawyers are saying that Nancy made a fool out of herself and the DEMS did themselves a disservice and have no case, but Nancy doesn't do things unless she's sure she's going to win after all she's not going to tarnish her reputation over such a weak case as the GOP is claiming.  Just my opinion here.

But that's just the thing: She already closed the deal with the vote. That locked it up. She has no more power but for her duty to deliver the verdict to the Senate. That she is grousing now can do nothing at all except queer the deal. It is SO strange.

I fully expected this impeachment gig to start much later... early spring would have been the sweet spot. Maybe even late February... And to drag on into the summer, where they would have had real leverage over house members trying to campaign...

That they did it NOW makes little sense at all - And that they let it come to this end, JIT for the political season to kick off in January... Just WOW! what blind fools are leading these people?

Schumer has also stated that he has information on Pence. 

Meh. Washington whispers, and little more than rumors. Pence is pretty squeaky clean.

Perhaps Nancy wants reassurances that they will be allowed to produce their evidence and witnesses and the GOP is not willing to do so.

Does not matter a whit. She has no leverage on the Senate.

One thing is for certain, Pelosi wants to make sure that the ball is in her court before proceeding any further.

No, she basically all but kicked the ball out of her court. What she has done is all she can do... Refuse to pass... Which means she cannot score. There is no power in that.

Like I said it does not make sense.

[roamer_1]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that if both Trump and Pence are removed from office, Nancy becomes President.

That is an impossibility. There is a contingency if Pence ascends, and his VP is surely already picked... And a fast track approval through the Senate (which will surely happen) takes it away from Pelosi regardless.

The Dems have a strategy, and we just haven't got it all figured out as yet.

That much is right, I think.