Wer'e not going to send out totally bogus and unfair articles
Of impeachment to you until we can be assured they will be treated honestly and fairly. What a frieking joke. Lose either way if you are the Dems. I didn't think they could do any more damage to themselves than they already have but I was wrong. It's snowballing on them.

Here's a question that hasn't been addressed yet (or at least, I haven't seen it addressed yet).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Pelosi is successful at putting the impeachment trial on hold until a time of her choosing. Suppose, also for the sake of argument, that there were new allegations against Trump unrelated to the Articles of Impeachment. Finally, suppose that the House then reports the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate and so the Senate starts the impeachment trial.

At that time, could the House Democrats use the new allegations against Trump at the impeachment trial or would they have to go back and redo the Articles of Impeachments with the new allegations included?

I can't imagine that the Chief Justice would allow the new allegations in. After all, the defense is ready to defend against the particular charges in the Articles of Impeachment. Any new charges that fall outside of the Articles of Impeachment would naturally seem to require another impeachment.

If this is true, then the reason for the House's tactic of not properly notifying the Senate of the impeachment shouldn't give them a back door to add charges outside of the Articles of Impeachment.

Any ideas on this?

halfastros81 said:

---

How could the Senate consider allegations that are not part of the Articles of
Impeachment. Seems to me the house would have to redraft and revote for anything new to be included.

---

Precisely.

It shouldn't surprise anyone if they tried, though.

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?

It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.

And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.

---

The House refused the minority party to present evidence that didn't fit their narrative.
The House found no evidence of wrongdoing.
No grand jury in the world would present charges based upon the evidence presented in the House hearings, much of which was done in secret. The Dems repeatedly broke House rules and even rules set by the Dems for this process.
The House Dems have been calling for impeachment since the day Trump was elected. Not one Republican voted for impeachment. It was obviously a partisan hack job that was done to undo the 2016 election.
It was a complete shredding of the Constitution.
Since Nancy set the precedent, so yes to end this farce, I would not mind that the Senate follows the same standards set by the House.

Give me a break about the judiciary committee representation. One witness, a Democrat who does like Trump, shredded the "Orange Man Bad" crying of the other two on a Constitutional basis. What would have council done there.
The Senate should dismiss quickly and then launch an investigation into Schiff and Pelosi.

---

An impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal matter. A President could be impeached without breaking any law at all. When it comes down to it, an impeachable act is whatever the House bases an impeachment on.

Any comparisons between an impeachment and a criminal trial are nothing but an overreach.

The Senate can pretty much decide what they want to investigate, but I don't see any advantage in starting a war between the House and Senate of each investigating the other.

---

While impeachment is a political process your statement that you don't have to break laws to be impeached is Constitutionally undecided and most likely incorrect. High Crimes and Misdemeanors are actual crimes.

IDAGG said:

---

Here is my take: I have said this before; Pelosi is a shrewd politician. She didn't want to take on impeachment in the first place. She was forced into it by her caucus demanding it. I think that Nancy realized early on that the Senate would acquit and so it would be 1) worthless and 2) blow up in the Dems faces.

So her play now is to hold the articles of impeachment and cry UNFAIR about the Senate rules, etc. That way they can say Trump was impeached AND it keeps the Republicans from being able to say that Trump was acquitted in the Senate. That will be the Dems rallying cry during the election: "HIS CRIMES ARE STILL BEING INVESTIGATED, WE ARE JUST WAITING FOR A FAIR TRIAL TO CONVICT HIM."

She is playing a crappy hand pretty well. But having said that, it is a crappy hand and it will still blow up in the Dems faces.

ETA: The all caps part is my sarcasm font.

---

This is probably an accurate account of what's happening. But Nancy also has to know that no matter what it's blowing up in their faces and the longer they drag it out the bigger the bomb grows.

Agnzona said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?

It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.

And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.

---

The House refused the minority party to present evidence that didn't fit their narrative.
The House found no evidence of wrongdoing.
No grand jury in the world would present charges based upon the evidence presented in the House hearings, much of which was done in secret. The Dems repeatedly broke House rules and even rules set by the Dems for this process.
The House Dems have been calling for impeachment since the day Trump was elected. Not one Republican voted for impeachment. It was obviously a partisan hack job that was done to undo the 2016 election.
It was a complete shredding of the Constitution.
Since Nancy set the precedent, so yes to end this farce, I would not mind that the Senate follows the same standards set by the House.

Give me a break about the judiciary committee representation. One witness, a Democrat who does like Trump, shredded the "Orange Man Bad" crying of the other two on a Constitutional basis. What would have council done there.
The Senate should dismiss quickly and then launch an investigation into Schiff and Pelosi.

---

An impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal matter. A President could be impeached without breaking any law at all. When it comes down to it, an impeachable act is whatever the House bases an impeachment on.

Any comparisons between an impeachment and a criminal trial are nothing but an overreach.

The Senate can pretty much decide what they want to investigate, but I don't see any advantage in starting a war between the House and Senate of each investigating the other.

---

While impeachment is a political process your statement that you don't have to break laws to be impeached is Constitutionally undecided and most likely incorrect. High Crimes and Misdemeanors are actual crimes.

---

That...and if one is to adopt the stance that because impeachment is a political process rather than a judicial process and therefore not subject to the usual standard procedures of due process...you can't then make a 180 and argue that Senate trial can not also be just as political a process in the same measure.

And if both are "political processes" then, Hell, who isn't going to be impeached when they don't have the House from now on?

Quote:

---

"We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment," Pelosi announced in a Wednesday night press conference. "We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side."

---

Watched her give this speech last night. She looked as if she was having a stroke with her speech and the way her eyes were all over the place. She looks like a deer in the head lights......seriously.

Agnzona said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?

It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.

And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.

---

The House refused the minority party to present evidence that didn't fit their narrative.
The House found no evidence of wrongdoing.
No grand jury in the world would present charges based upon the evidence presented in the House hearings, much of which was done in secret. The Dems repeatedly broke House rules and even rules set by the Dems for this process.
The House Dems have been calling for impeachment since the day Trump was elected. Not one Republican voted for impeachment. It was obviously a partisan hack job that was done to undo the 2016 election.
It was a complete shredding of the Constitution.
Since Nancy set the precedent, so yes to end this farce, I would not mind that the Senate follows the same standards set by the House.

Give me a break about the judiciary committee representation. One witness, a Democrat who does like Trump, shredded the "Orange Man Bad" crying of the other two on a Constitutional basis. What would have council done there.
The Senate should dismiss quickly and then launch an investigation into Schiff and Pelosi.

---

An impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal matter. A President could be impeached without breaking any law at all. When it comes down to it, an impeachable act is whatever the House bases an impeachment on.

Any comparisons between an impeachment and a criminal trial are nothing but an overreach.

The Senate can pretty much decide what they want to investigate, but I don't see any advantage in starting a war between the House and Senate of each investigating the other.

---

While impeachment is a political process your statement that you don't have to break laws to be impeached is Constitutionally undecided and most likely incorrect. High Crimes and Misdemeanors are actual crimes.

---

There is legitimate thought that "high crimes and misdemeanors" comes from the British and refers to political abuses.

From www.lawliberty.org/2018/08/09/the-original-meaning-of-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-part-2/:

Quote:

---

imply put: the records of the debates at the Constitutional Convention show that the framers deliberately borrowed the concept of impeachment and even the specific term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" from the English experience.

...

As to the impeachment standard itself, the Constitutional Convention considered a number of formulations before finally returning to the familiar English-practice standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Early discussion centered largely on the idea of abuse or misuse of official government power. On June 13, the report of the "Committee of the Whole" included a resolution that the executive would be removable "on impeachment and conviction of malpractices or neglect of duty." In a subsequent debate, George Mason referred to "corruption" as grounds for impeachment. Gouverneur Morris, who went back and forth on whether the president should be impeachable at all, eventually affirmed that a power of impeachment was necessary to guard against a president "corrupting his electors" to gain office, betraying his trust, being in foreign pay, or engaging in "bribery," "treachery," or other corruption. Edmund Randolph said impeachment was needed to guard against a president "abusing his power." James Madison spoke broadly of impeachment as necessary to protect the people against "negligence" or "perfidy" (that is, dishonesty), warning that a president might "pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation [self-dealing] or oppression" or "betray his trust to a foreign power."

...

The evidence of original meaning, drawn from the English background experience and from the framers' linguistic choices, is fairly clear: the impeachment standard chosen by the framers "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" possessed a recognized historical meaning derived from long practice and usage; that meaning was broad, extending well beyond ordinary criminality, and including a variety of perceived offences of a "political" nature involving injuries to the constitutional system or abuse of government authority; the framers were familiar with and consciously drew upon that broad meaning and traditional understanding, adopting it in preference to other formulations (and over certain objections).

---

Quote:

---

She looks like a deer in the head lights......seriously.

---

More like a skunk. Refusing to move and lifting its tail to the oncoming car. Inevitably going to get crushed, but leaving a final parting gift.

Quote:

---

The evidence of original meaning, drawn from the English background experience and from the framers' linguistic choices, is fairly clear: the impeachment standard chosen by the framers "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" possessed a recognized historical meaning derived from long practice and usage; that meaning was broad, extending well beyond ordinary criminality, and including a variety of perceived offences of a "political" nature involving injuries to the constitutional system or abuse of government authority...

---

Great. The Dem's have set the standard here as they have with everything else: Them self-identifying as "abused" is all that is required for a charge of abuse.

Unlikely. Malfeasance was removed for being to much like the definition you quoted.

Nothing says power play like fumbling a single impeachment question and demanding press ask no more impeachment qs.

thirdcoast said:

---

Nothing says power play like fumbling a single impeachment question and demanding press ask no more impeachment qs.

---

Yeah, that's a good look. "We impeached a President for only the third time in the country's history...and, please, no questions."

Eric wants to use precedent when it is convenient for his argument but ignore it (the House can make up its own rules about impeachment) when precedent doesn't support his argument. It is the same style that Pelosi uses. We can be 100% partisan in the House, but any Republican in the Senate who disagrees with illegally removing a duly elected president is partisan and must recuse himself.

Eric and the Democrats just keep showing how little they regard the law, the Constitution, and the citizens of the country.

Agnzona said:

---

Unlikely. Malfeasance was removed for being to much like the definition you quoted.

---

It would make sense that if something is too much like what is already covered, they probably don't need to add more verbage that just covers the same thing.

thirdcoast said:

---

Nothing says power play like fumbling a single impeachment question and demanding press ask no more impeachment qs.

---

"Frankly, I don't care what the Republicans say."

So much for any bipartisanship from the Democrats regarding impeachment. This statement alone should be enough to drop the impeachment cold. She indirectly admits that this entire sham is just a partisan coup to remove a duly elected president.

Again not likely as it was argued it was too broad and could be used for political reasons.

Joe Biden is such an upstanding American institution, that it was political abuse to ask another country to look into his sons apparent conflict of interest with an corrupt company in the country in question.

Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

BuddysBud said:

---

Eric wants to use precedent when it is convenient for his argument but ignore it (the House can make up its own rules about impeachment) when precedent doesn't support his argument. It is the same style that Pelosi uses. We can be 100% partisan in the House, but any Republican in the Senate who disagrees with illegally removing a duly elected president is partisan and must recuse himself.

Eric and the Democrats just keep showing how little they regard the law, the Constitution, and the citizens of the country.

---

That is all bull*****

I'm entirely at ease with the House setting their rules and the Senate setting their rules.

The question at hand is how the House notifies the Senate of their action. Considering that this is hardly the only time this arises, there has to be some kind of formal process by which one provides an official notice to the other of such actions.

It has absolutely nothing to with convenience of arguments.

Also, I have never called for any Republican to recuse themselves from the proceeding.

For that matter, I think the Democrats in Congress are really screwed up on this. They hardly started the investigation before saying it is complete. They haven't interviewed many witnesses that they need to interview. I think that a proper investigation should take a year or more and they are trying to compress it into a very short time period. It makes me wonder if they are even serious about it -- I think it is probably solely for publicity.

I don't like Trump but I don't see what they have as being sufficient for an impeachment.

What I do see in all this is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have much concern for the Constitution and the law. For many members of both party, hyperbole trumps (no pun intended) the Constitution every time.

hbtheduce said:

---

Joe Biden is such an upstanding American institution, that it was political abuse to ask another country to look into his sons apparent conflict of interest with an corrupt company in the country in question.

Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

---

Investigate him properly and if the results warrant it, put him on trial. Imprison him if convicted.

eric76 said:

---

Stressboy said:

---

eric76 said:

---

BuddysBud said:

---

Can the Senate just make up rules that are obviously biased, and vote that if the House doesn't bring the case within a certain time (say 3 days), the trial is over?

It's not like the House impeachment process was an open, unbiased investigation with due process and both parties were allowed equal opportunities to present evidence.

---

Do you really want the Senate to do an end run around the Constitution?

The House impeachment process was screwed up, but not for the reason you think. Do you really believe that someone is denied due process if they are not permitted to be a part of the investigation against them? Let's empty out the prisons if that is true.

And don't forget that the House Judiciary Committee extended an offer to Trump to be represented in their hearings and Trump turned them down. That should pretty much end any nonsense about due process violations.

---

Hey Eric where do you stand on the 6th Amendment that guarantees a speedy trial. By purposely not allowing this to go to the senate for trial the house is violating the 6th. If I was trump I would immediately appeal to the Supreme Court to ensure a speedy trial.

---

The Constitutional guarantee for a speedy trial is for a criminal trial. Since an impeachment is not a criminal trial, there is no 6th amendment violation in this case.

---

This is covered in the 9th Amendment.

Quote:

---

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

---

So an argument can be made that even though this is not a "criminal" case an individual's right to a speedy trial can not be denied.

Quote:

---

if the results warrant

---

If? If? Hellen Keller saw and heard the sh*t they did. Come on man.....that is obtuse taken to infinity.

Agnzona said:

---

Again not likely as it was argued it was too broad and could be used for political reasons.

---

Do you have any cites for accounts of the arguments about using the word malfeasance in reference to impeachments?

nu awlins ag said:

---

Quote:

---

if the results warrant

---

If? If? Hellen Keller saw and heard the sh*t they did. Come on man.....that is obtuse taken to infinity.

---

Without a proper investigation, the results do not warrant a trial. That goes for Biden as well as it does for Trump.

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Joe Biden is such an upstanding American institution, that it was political abuse to ask another country to look into his sons apparent conflict of interest with an corrupt company in the country in question.

Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

---

Investigate him properly and if the results warrant it, put him on trial. Imprison him if convicted.

---

There's a problem here. Calling for an investigation is considered an abuse of power. Even when the subject of the investigation has handed everyone probable cause by actually bragging about it.

eric76 said:

---

nu awlins ag said:

---

Quote:

---

if the results warrant

---

If? If? Hellen Keller saw and heard the sh*t they did. Come on man.....that is obtuse taken to infinity.

---

Without a proper investigation, the results do not warrant a trial. That goes for Biden as well as it does for Trump.

---

You mean like "evidence" to bring to a trial after an investigation?

Investigating now will only add fuel to the "President trump is using the power of his office to investigate his political rivals." accusations. Unless the Democrats do the investigating, it will only bee seen as a political move. Even then, can you imagine the backlash if Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren called for a full investigation of Hunter BIden and Joe's involvement?

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Joe Biden is such an upstanding American institution, that it was political abuse to ask another country to look into his sons apparent conflict of interest with an corrupt company in the country in question.

Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

---

Investigate him properly and if the results warrant it, put him on trial. Imprison him if convicted.

---

There's a problem here. Calling for an investigation is considered an abuse of power. Even when the subject of the investigation has handed everyone probable cause by actually bragging about it.

---

Huh?

Are you saying that the DOJ is powerless to investigate Biden? Really?

Or are you saying that my "Investigate him properly" is an abuse of power?

Either is absurd.

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Joe Biden is such an upstanding American institution, that it was political abuse to ask another country to look into his sons apparent conflict of interest with an corrupt company in the country in question.

Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

---

Investigate him properly and if the results warrant it, put him on trial. Imprison him if convicted.

---

If you had to investigate a powerful politician's son for crimes in another country, whats the best way to go about it? Take into account the history of Ukraine, getting evidence, the credibility of the investigation, etc.

Your inference that ONLY a domestic investigation is a proper investigation, is a false characterization. Not only would an investigation spearheaded by Ukraine be less politically biased, it also tests the new administration's commitment to "fighting corruption", and puts Ukraine publicly on the same side of the US DOJ for pursuing evidence and testimony.

taxpreparer said:

---

Investigating now will only add fuel to the "President trump is using the power of his office to investigate his political rivals." accusations. Unless the Democrats do the investigating, it will only bee seen as a political move. Even then, can you imagine the backlash if Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren called for a full investigation of Hunter BIden and Joe's involvement?

---

The House or Senate could surely do their own investigation. The DOJ could as well.

I believe that I've read that the President is best advised to leave DOJ investigations and prosecutions up to the DOJ. He certainly should not be urging investigations of his opponents for his own political benefit. Let the DOJ do its job.

Swarely said:

---

Quote:

---

Minutes after the House voted to impeach President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dropped a bombshell: She won't send the articles of impeachment to the Senate until she feels they'll get a fair hearing on the other side of Capitol Hill.

"We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment," Pelosi announced in a Wednesday night press conference. "We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side."

The move could delay a Senate trial and is a move by House Democratic leaders to try to leverage their power to force Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to make concessions on how the trial will be run

---

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8z5w/nancy-pelosi-just-made-a-major-impeachment-power-play

---

McConnel should respond with "We have to vote on articles of impeachment in the Senate before you can see what the process is".

eric76 said:

---

Squadron7 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

hbtheduce said:

---

Joe Biden is such an upstanding American institution, that it was political abuse to ask another country to look into his sons apparent conflict of interest with an corrupt company in the country in question.

Sounds like a winning political strategy to me.

---

Investigate him properly and if the results warrant it, put him on trial. Imprison him if convicted.

---

There's a problem here. Calling for an investigation is considered an abuse of power. Even when the subject of the investigation has handed everyone probable cause by actually bragging about it.

---

Huh?

Are you saying that the DOJ is powerless to investigate Biden? Really?

Or are you saying that my "Investigate him properly" is an abuse of power?

Either is absurd.

---

"Investigate him properly" was always going involve the participation of Ukrainian officials. Pressuring them to involve themselves therefore IS investigating him properly.

eric76 said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

Investigating now will only add fuel to the "President trump is using the power of his office to investigate his political rivals." accusations. Unless the Democrats do the investigating, it will only bee seen as a political move. Even then, can you imagine the backlash if Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren called for a full investigation of Hunter BIden and Joe's involvement?

---

The House or Senate could surely do their own investigation. The DOJ could as well.

I believe that I've read that the President is best advised to leave DOJ investigations and prosecutions up to the DOJ. He certainly should not be urging investigations of his opponents for his own political benefit. Let the DOJ do its job.

---

The DOJ is an executive agency. They ultimately answer to trump and what he deems important regarding national security.

eric76 said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

Investigating now will only add fuel to the "President trump is using the power of his office to investigate his political rivals." accusations. Unless the Democrats do the investigating, it will only bee seen as a political move. Even then, can you imagine the backlash if Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren called for a full investigation of Hunter BIden and Joe's involvement?

---

The House or Senate could surely do their own investigation. The DOJ could as well.

I believe that I've read that the President is best advised to leave DOJ investigations and prosecutions up to the DOJ. He certainly should not be urging investigations of his opponents for his own political benefit. Let the DOJ do its job.

---

Exactly, getting a third party (and the one with jurisdiction) to start an investigation keeps the DOJ impartial and unbiased.