Josh Hawley floats measure to dismiss ‘bogus impeachment for lack of prosecution’

kansascity.com ^ | 1/2/20 | Bryan Lowry

[a little elbow grease]

Sen. Josh Hawley announced on Twitter Thursday that he will introduce a measure to dismiss President Donald Trump’s impeachment when Congress returns Monday.

The Missouri Republican’s proposal comes in reaction to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to withhold the recently passed articles of impeachment from the Senate in an effort to compel Republicans to allow witnesses at a Senate trial.

“Dems said impeachment was URGENT. Now they don’t want to have a trial, because they have no evidence. In real world, if prosecution doesn’t proceed with case, it gets dismissed,” Hawley, the former Missouri attorney general, said on Twitter. “So on Monday, I will introduce measure to dismiss this bogus impeachment for lack of prosecution.”

[a little elbow grease]

Any thoughts?

Is Josh Hawley grandstanding or are his intentions on the up and up?

He was a standup guy at the ridiculous "impeachment hearings".

[kjam22]

Potential witness John Bolton has been hospitalized.......after his iran war errection has lasted more than 4 hours.

[pepsionice]

You would need twenty-plus Democrats to vote along with this bill. I might agree and say that five might find some reason to go along with it. This is mostly for ‘hype’.

At this point, I might also suggest that we need to go back to the Constitution and write two lines of text....giving the House Speaker ten days to hand over the Articles of Impeachment, or they fall null and void.

[flaglady47]

“I will introduce measure to dismiss this bogus impeachment for lack of prosecution”

Right on! He’s absolutely correct. Go for it. The question is, how will the squishes (Murkowski, Collins, Romney, etc.) vote? And how many of Hawley’s fellow Pubs with no spine, will back this?

[17th Miss Regt]

Nancy Pelosi’s decision to withhold the recently passed articles of impeachment from the Senate in an effort to compel Republicans to allow witnesses at a Senate trial.

This is flagrant House interference in how the Senate performs its business. The constitution clearly states that each house may set its own rules and this move is obviously designed to get the Senate to change the way it has done business. If the House does not like how the Senate does business the House can try to amend the constitution (good luck with that).

In response the Senate should pass a bill requiring the House to deliver articles of impeachment within 24 hours of their adoption. Include a provision that requires the master at arms to incarcerate the Speaker immediately if the articles are not delivered within 24 hours. This is interference by the Senate in how the House conducts its business and is turnabout. Let's see how Pelousi likes it.

[nathanbedford]

I believe there is a "cram down" method by which the 51 senators can change the rule in which case when the rule is changed, the Senate can proceed to vote. But vote on what?

Hawley's proposal would be to dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds but that is certainly not the best way to proceed. McConnell as Senate leader ought to take up the impeachment as though the articles had been delivered (after all there is no constitutional requirement that there be articles of impeachment much less delivered) and entertain a motion to dismiss on the MERITS. Hawley would have the matter rendered inoperative but probably subject to revival by the House at the whim of the Democrats.

In other words, a better motion would be to dismiss assuming that all the factual allegations in the drafted articles of impeachment were true and the Senate concludes by 51 votes that the matter must be dismissed because they don't add up to an impeachable offense.

The president's main defense has always been that there was no quid pro quo and the conversation demonstrates that. The Democrats response has always been that collateral evidence proves a quid pro quo.This would tend to foreclose further investigations by the House of Representatives which, since they control the timing, will be used to affect the upcoming election. Thus, the never-ending search by the House to amplify the grounds for impeachment after the "transcript" of the conversation was released would be rendered irrelevant, at least in logic because, even assuming a quid pro quo there is no impeachable offense.

[eartick]

Not so sure about this.

Ol Mcturtle can just change the rules to 51 votes to have this thrown out.

I am no scholar but have read some about rule changes.

[clintonh8r]

I think he’ll be privately rebuffed for preempting the turtle.

[Savage Beast]

A better idea: Dismiss this ‘bogus impeachment’ because it is unconstitutional and thus illegal. The Supreme Court should be asked to concur.

[bigbob]

Set a date, then dismiss if Pelosi misses it. The Senate has the power to set the rules for an impeachment trial.

[a little elbow grease]

I like the way you think.

[a little elbow grease]

LOL

[bert]

The attack on and death of the General in Iraq rendered the impeachment irrelevant.

Also rendered irrelevant are Speaker Pelosi, Rep Schiff and Rep Nadler. All their efforts are for naught

[a little elbow grease]

I'm confused. I think I need a good stiff drink to understand this. I'll then read it SLOWLY once more.

I know from the past that you are brilliant, but unfortunately, I am not.

;-)

[nathanbedford]

The failing is mine not yours.

It is essential to get a dismissal on merit not on procedure to demonstrate that even with a quid pro quo there is no case to be made. That is, the president cannot have committed an impeachable offense by inquiring into corruption even though that inquiry might benefit him personally as a future candidate.

So, assume that the presidents inquiry was motivated to advance his political campaign against a presumed opponent, Joe Biden. That is not an impeachable offense so long as the president had a plausible reason to initiate investigation of corruption. To hold otherwise would be to handcuff every president and to shield every corruption of potential candidates.

Thus the Senate stops the whole inquiry by a finding on the merits that there is no conceivable impeachable offense. It is necessary to stop the inquiry to take that probe away from the Democrats when we all know it will be amplified by the media.

[OKSooner]

You had me goin’ there... briefly... :)

[a little elbow grease]

Aha! I get it, and you are totally correct.

Thank you for the clarification.

(I just listened to Schumer on the floor of the Senate and it was quite disturbing to see a man such as he propose such lame arguments.)

[BillyBoy]

>> Hawley's proposal would be to dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds but that is certainly not the best way to proceed. McConnell as Senate leader ought to take up the impeachment as though the articles had been delivered (after all there is no constitutional requirement that there be articles of impeachment much less delivered) and entertain a motion to dismiss on the MERITS. Hawley would have the matter rendered inoperative but probably subject to revival by the House at the whim of the Democrats. In other words, a better motion would be to dismiss assuming that all the factual allegations in the drafted articles of impeachment were true and the Senate concludes by 51 votes that the matter must be dismissed because they don't add up to an impeachable offense. <<

Hell has frozen over, Nathanbedford and I agree on something.

If the Senate went with Hawley's motion right now, the RATS would just play victim and run on "the Senate Republicans are soooo corrupt they HID Trump's crimes and REFUSED to even consider ANY evidence PROVING how evil the Orange Man is... blah blah blah."

The RATs know their "charges" are a joke and they have no evidence whatsoever to "present", so their ideal scenario is hold off a Senate trial as long as possible (ideally the trial is STILL "pending" on Election Day for the RATs and they can say stuff like "an impeached President awaiting trial for his crimes has NO BUSINESS appointing judges under such a cloud of suspicion, blah blah blah...)

So basically, what McConnell and the Senate GOP have to do is refuse to play that game, and cite the constitutional precedent for a fair and SPEEDY trial that follows the House impeaching someone. Announce a date for the trial to start, give the House a deadline to appoint House Managers to prosecute the case and prepare their material to present to the Senate. Tell Pelosi that both sides will be allowed equal time to present their stuff for consideration. Give her an ultimatum that the trial WILL proceed on THAT day whether the House Managers show up or not, so if the evidence is so overwhelming that Trump is a danger to the Republic, its in their best interests to fully participate in the prosecution during the trial.

If Pelosi OR the Senate RATS object to the date and trial rules, the GOP can prevail by a simple majority vote.

Once the "trial" commences, it will be obvious to EVERYONE watching on C-SPAN that the RATS have ZERO evidence to present, and are tilting at windmills. Since they are clearly wasting the Senate's time on hearsay and wild speculation, a Motion should be made at that time to dismiss the charges on the MERITS, and to "Terminate the matter with extreme prejudice" so the House cannot re-impeach Trump for the same "crimes", as the Senate has already demonstrated that no such "crime" exists. Again, this can be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

If the GOP regains control of the House in Nov. 2020, a motion should be put forward and passed (again, by simple majority vote) to formally Censure all those who abused the power of the impeachment process "recklessly and frivolously, without due consideration or any evidence of serious wrongdoing"). That would send a strong message to future Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, not to pursue an "impeachment" just because the President is a member of the other party.

[BillyBoy]

>> Hawley's proposal would be to dismiss the impeachment on procedural grounds but that is certainly not the best way to proceed. McConnell as Senate leader ought to take up the impeachment as though the articles had been delivered (after all there is no constitutional requirement that there be articles of impeachment much less delivered) and entertain a motion to dismiss on the MERITS. Hawley would have the matter rendered inoperative but probably subject to revival by the House at the whim of the Democrats. In other words, a better motion would be to dismiss assuming that all the factual allegations in the drafted articles of impeachment were true and the Senate concludes by 51 votes that the matter must be dismissed because they don't add up to an impeachable offense. <<

Hell has frozen over, Nathanbedford and I agree on something.

If the Senate went with Hawley's motion right now, the RATS would just play victim and run on "the Senate Republicans are soooo corrupt they HID Trump's crimes and REFUSED to even consider ANY evidence PROVING how evil the Orange Man is... blah blah blah."

The RATs know their "charges" are a joke and they have no evidence whatsoever to "present", so their ideal scenario is hold off a Senate trial as long as possible (ideally the trial is STILL "pending" on Election Day for the RATs and they can say stuff like "an impeached President awaiting trial for his crimes has NO BUSINESS appointing judges under such a cloud of suspicion, blah blah blah...)

So basically, what McConnell and the Senate GOP have to do is refuse to play that game, and cite the constitutional precedent for a fair and SPEEDY trial that follows the House impeaching someone. Announce a date for the trial to start, give the House a deadline to appoint House Managers to prosecute the case and prepare their material to present to the Senate. Tell Pelosi that both sides will be allowed equal time to present their stuff for consideration. Give her an ultimatum that the trial WILL proceed on THAT day whether the House Managers show up or not, so if the evidence is so overwhelming that Trump is a danger to the Republic, its in their best interests to fully participate in the prosecution during the trial.

If Pelosi OR the Senate RATS object to the date and trial rules, the GOP can prevail by a simple majority vote.

Once the "trial" commences, it will be obvious to EVERYONE watching on C-SPAN that the RATS have ZERO evidence to present, and are tilting at windmills. Since they are clearly wasting the Senate's time on hearsay and wild speculation, a Motion should be made at that time to dismiss the charges on the MERITS, and to "Terminate the matter with extreme prejudice" so the House cannot re-impeach Trump for the same "crimes", as the Senate has already demonstrated that no such "crime" exists. Again, this can be accomplished by a simple majority vote.

If the GOP regains control of the House in Nov. 2020, a motion should be put forward and passed (again, by simple majority vote) to formally Censure all those who abused the power of the impeachment process "recklessly and frivolously, without due consideration or any evidence of serious wrongdoing"). That would send a strong message to future Congresses, both Republican and Democrat, not to pursue an "impeachment" just because the President is a member of the other party.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Sherman ? Whatcha tryin' to do, start another civil war ? :-P

(Don't blame me, I'd have voted for John Bell in 1860, if only because Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in TN)