Posted on 12/19/2019 3:31:46 AM PST by Kaslin
Question:
Is it possible that the SCOTUS could step in and declare that the impeachment is void because it was not accomplished according to the Law?
Sounds good. Why should we care if Pelosi sends them to the Senate, or not? If she does this, it shows they never were serious about removing Trump. It was all a sham.
Mitch should tell her to shove them up her arse.
First I have to say I was wrong. I never believed that the Democrats would vote on impeachment. On one level it just does not make sense that they would continue down this path when it is clear that some individuals as well as the party will be hurt by this action. My only defense is that there must be something in play that we (the public) do not know yet.
But that does not change the fact I was wrong in my prediction.
The irony of course is that in Nancy’s attempt to make this seem serious and damaging, she’s actually made impeachment trivial and useless.
Kind of like how Obama made the Nobel Peace Prize irrelevant.
In other words, she fears that the Senate will adhere to law and the Constitution.
Exactly! Good point.
Pelosi refused to commit to any timeline for sending the articles, which is required to begin the impeachment trial.
Is it?
Does Politico have this right, or are they trying to set the narrative once again, and claim rules and laws that simply do not exist?
The Constitution is mute on what happens after the Impeachment vote, except that the "Senate shall have SOLE responsibility to conduct the trial".
Pelosi's role is done.
I found a word that perfectly describes Nancy, Shifty Schiff and other Dems:
traitor
noun
noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
“they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy”
h
Similar:
betrayer
back-stabber
double-crosser
double-dealer
Drag it out some more, Trumps numbers have gone up since you started, keep dragging and watch them go even higher.
I guess McConnell could reply to fully recess the Senate until middle or late January, whatever is the norm. Bet those several senators running for president will just love that. Besides, that would give President Trump the unfettered opportunity and invite to then ask for resignation of all leftover appointees and make recess appointments, at least temporarily, for all of those open appointee positions throughout the government. This time, without Never Trumper recommendations. Good appointments for all open positions to carry the administration through the election year would free up resources and allow focus on the agenda and re-election. Let the Democrats stew on that.
Don’t kid yourself. The civil war has already started. The first shooting battle hasn’t commenced but they are already at war against America and if they take out our President they will come after us and try to kill us. Prep.
Call her bluff. Let it sit on her desk until next year.
Where does it say that the Articles from the House have to actually be referred to the Senate in order for them to hold a trial?
We all know they voted and passed the 2 articles.
The rules of the trial belong to Mitch.
Why couldn’t he just convene the Senate and hold the trial...Pelosi be damned?
Saw a CIWS demonstration once. The rate of fire was unbelievable.
Pelosi is de facto nullifying the impeachment by not sending it on to the Senate.
She is pretending to weild power she does not have.
Democrat friends and relatives have declared themselves enemies of America and must be ostracized whereever you encounter them
Can Mitch just refuse to accept them until he feels ready?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.