Posted on 12/20/2019 7:56:49 AM PST by conservative98
Consider it a twist on the old question about a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it: If the House adopts articles of impeachment but never sends them to the Senate, is a president truly impeached?
A Harvard law professor, who also served as a Democrat-called impeachment witness, answered with a resounding “no” in a column that speaks to the deep dilemma House Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces as she sits on two articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Pelosi, D-Calif., is apparently using the delay as leverage to extract favorable terms for a Senate trial. But Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg that an “indefinite delay” would pose a “serious problem”—as impeachment only technically happens when the articles are transmitted to the Senate.
“Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: 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.
“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president,” he continued. “If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
we don’t need him to tell us, we know that.
Fake news, fake charges, now fake impeachment.
SCOTUS has ALREADY ruled on whether or not the Senate can try an impeachment in the absence of transmittal by the House and/or members of the House acting as the prosecutors. Money quotes:
“the three very specific requirements that the Constitution does impose on the Senate when trying impeachments [are]: The Members must be under oath, a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried. These limitations are quite precise, and their nature suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings”
“A review of the Constitutional Convention’s history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. Pp. 229-236.”
In other words, it’s a “political question” that’s not subject even to judicial review, so the Senate can decide for itself what procedures must be followed when trying an impeachment—including whether formal transmittal from the House must occur (a purely ministerial procedure not required by the Constitution) and/or who must act as the prosecutors.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.html
talk about a lose-lose situation. The President has not been impeached and McConnell has no obligation nor desire to roll over for the dems. Three years, 7 attempts to impeach the President and he is still standing tall, with numbers never seen before.
"this is a fine mess you've gotten me into Nadliff"
Any DNC nominee has to be impeachment proof. That is a unicorn possibility.
“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.”
Like the “fair hearings” that Shithead Shiff held?
The Constitution guarantees a fair trial for the accused, not the accusers.
She doesn’t want “fairness”, she wants another media circus while the Rats grill Trump’s aides and counsel, which is not fair at all.
In a fair trial, the judge (or in this case, the Senate), would summarily dismiss the charges as false, baseless, frivolous, and politically motivated.
Hahahaha! Enjoy the DIM/Lefty clown show. More popcorn! Now...let’s see some indictments and imprisonment.
Good post.
She was opposed to impeachment so the rabble got their wish in the house. She can claim they got what they asked for and still not go to the senate where where she knows it won't fly.
She may be waiting for RBG to die or become unable to continue on the SCOTUS (very soon, certainly before 2020 elections) then drop the articles to hobble her replacement process until after the elections. Politically this is her strong suit. Energizing all the feminazis over abortion just before an election.
She may be delusional and think she is running the country defacto because they will shade every decision the administration makes now with the "Trump is an impeached president" meme.
There are more opinions out there but these are my input.
What leverage?
Pelosi: Meet our Senate trial demands or the House won’t officially impeach the President.
Did I miss something?
The old “having your cake and eating it too” trick.
The Articles that the House wrote are attempting to impeach the President for using the Executive powers of his office. Which is why Senate Majority Leader called them “Constitutionally incoherent!”
They are waiting for the evidence to show up from things currently in court.
Pelosi should be removed from office.
Pelosi now says Trump was impeached when she gaveled the vote results in the House. To the swampers, this increases the plausibility of a Trump defeat in 2020 thus helping to mask their massive vote fraud/election rigging plans to unseat Trump.
Is there a time frame for this? I would presume that it dies with the 116th Congress leaving office.
Would all Senators be required to drop everything to hear the case for impeachment? I know that the ones campaigning would be required to sit and judge. Hypothetically, if RBG assumed room temperature, could Nancy hit the Senate with impeachment, and delay any action on replacing her?
Fake news, fake charges, now fake impeachment.
#Shampeachment!
She’s holding the American people hostage to this power abusing Congress obstructing President. Why Nancy why?
Pelosi has no authority or power to dictate how the Senate conducts a trial. Here is what the US Constitution has to say:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
“The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.“
”When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice [John Roberts] shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”
I wonder how Roberts and McConnell would interact? Roberts could be key to the final outcome.
I think the real ploy here is to keep Trump from nominating a replacement for RBG. Dems know her time is short. I can hear it now — we can’t consider a nomination from an impeached president until the trial is over... there can’t be a trial til the house sends over the articles. Therefore Trump cannot appoint a replacement and besides it’s an election year. Yada yada yada....
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.