The actual Impeachment process:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:
The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The truth is, impeachment is anything a majority of the House of Representatives says it s.

Of course, then there is that pesky trial in the Senate, where witnesses are actually sworn in, to tell the truth. As opposed th this “sham show” perpetrated by Adam Schiff and Nancy P.

It's not an impeachment process. It's more like a political lynching. It's one sided and what the perpetrators on the left say is what goes. Therefore it's illegitimate and shouldn't be allowed to continue in the manner that it is.

the Senate can dismiss the charges without a vote.

here is the NY Times on this ...


Impeachment Rules Say Senate Must Act, but Its Act Might Be a Swift Dismissal

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/u...peachment.html


"The fusty rules of the Senate make clear that Republicans could not unilaterally stonewall articles of impeachment of Mr. Trump as they did the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick B. Garland. But Mr. McConnell’s declaration suggests the Republican-controlled Senate could move expeditiously to toss them out if Republicans conclude the House impeachment is meritless, or a strictly partisan affair."


here is that unbiased and fair minded (sic) outfit known as Lawfare


https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-sena...peachment-case


"The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote."


while this is a constitutional right of the Senate, naturally both the NY Times and Lawfare find this right to be an erosion of norms. but not unconstitutional .. because it isn't.


"But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump."

This to will be an epic fail.

If impeachment is voted and goes to a Senate trial - the Republicans have the privilege of running the rules, and to call witnesses and subpoena testimony.
They can expand the focus far beyond whatever cockamamie excuse is in the impeachment vote - to include the conduct and crimes of the DPST leadership.

Political fallout for 2020 election could be fatal to DPST's.

Pelosi is aware of this - as is McConnell.

I do not believe Pelosi hs any intention of letting it go to a Senate trial - the political risks are too high - and DPST's are happy to with their lies and collusion McCarthyite behavior protected by the house majority status.

Pelosi might be over-ruled by a House vote - but the fractious DPST's can only agree on their hatred for Trump and the American people.

wtf may now enter a meme of a great ape in a nazi costume.

speaking for the Axis of Socialism.

The democrats are really only using this to cause as much damage to Trump for 2020 as they can. They don't give a damn about their consituents or the American people as a nation. They want their power back and feel that the ends justify the means. Hmmm, where have we heard that before?

Oeb has a point about Pelosi, even just last week, she was looking for a concrete anything on Trump. It appears she's well aware that the Dims will get smashed. But, she simply can't stop the lemmings from going over a cliff.

Oeb has a point about Pelosi, even just last week, she was looking for a concrete anything on Trump. It appears she's well aware that the Dims will get smashed. But, she simply can't stop the lemmings from going over a cliff. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

it's possible Pelosi only wants the publicity and "opts not" to hold a formal vote on impeachment. remember that the Democrats are controlling what is released. their play might be to release all these "opinions" by people who had no direct involvement with the actual impeachable offense .. the Ukraine call. just that they felt it was "wrong".


i think that is a failed strategy. certainly the press is providing much negative coverage but they do that daily on Trump anyway. they still haven't realized they aided Trump's win in 2016 by their constant negative coverage and those idiots are still making the same mistake. if they do this just for the coverage it will be a colossal failure. everyone will see it for a political stunt. which it is.


the better play is push for a Senate trial, knowing the Republicans will not impeach Trump over a transcript where no quid pro quo happened. what they can say then is that the Republicans "covered" for Trump and use it as a rallying call to vote against him and all Republicans up for re-election in 2020.

the Senate can dismiss the charges without a vote.

here is the NY Times on this ...


Impeachment Rules Say Senate Must Act, but Its Act Might Be a Swift Dismissal

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/u...peachment.html


"The fusty rules of the Senate make clear that Republicans could not unilaterally stonewall articles of impeachment of Mr. Trump as they did the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick B. Garland. But Mr. McConnell’s declaration suggests the Republican-controlled Senate could move expeditiously to toss them out if Republicans conclude the House impeachment is meritless, or a strictly partisan affair."


here is that unbiased and fair minded (sic) outfit known as Lawfare


https://www.lawfareblog.com/can-sena...peachment-case


"The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote."


while this is a constitutional right of the Senate, naturally both the NY Times and Lawfare find this right to be an erosion of norms. but not unconstitutional .. because it isn't.


"But it is also possible that, in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump." Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Not so fast buckaroo.

There’s been some discussion that Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell would move to dismiss a Trump impeachment with no trial. It’s happened before, back in 1797 after the first impeachment proceedings in the House. Representatives impeached Senator William Blount and presented the Senate with articles of impeachment to try but the senators expelled Blount from his post the next day. Thus, the senator shirked trial by arguing it couldn’t proceed as he was no longer in office, and that there was no need for removal. The impeachment resolution was dismissed, and this has since been seen as support for the claim that senators can move to dismiss impeachment before trial.

As Duke Law School professor and former acting solicitor general Walter Dellinger told Slate, a motion to dismiss could be made, and if carried by a majority vote, end the matter in the Senate. Still, the chief justice would call the question. “[W]ith the chief justice in the chair, I am not at all confident that the majority leader of the Senate can successfully make this go away without having at least an initial vote,” Dellinger said.

By Ephrat Livni in Washington DC October 3, 2019

Not so fast buckaroo.

Trump impeachment will be a nightmare for Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts

By Ephrat Livni in Washington DC October 3, 2019 Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

you realize that Roberts presides but does not get a vote, yeah? guess who votes to break a tie in the Senate?


Vice President Mike Pence.

116th Congress (2019-2021)
Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)
Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100


45 + 2 - 6 = 41. Democrats.


you realize that Roberts will be compelled to force all 6 current Democratic Senators running for President to rescue themselves from voting for the obvious conflict of interest, yeah?


Bennet, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren.


the Democrats didn't really think this through, did they?

How stupid are you?

Stop sucking cock for 5 minutes and get informed.

The former ambassador to the Ukraine testified under oath. Get off your lying, lazy ass and read the transcript.

Just STFU until you have something else true to say about the inquiry. You started off so well but then deteriorated rapidly.

You can now return to your head bobbing.

I look forward to proving you wrong on a regular basis.
As usual.

The truth is, impeachment is anything a majority of the House of Representatives says it s.

Of course, then there is that pesky trial in the Senate, where witnesses are actually sworn in, to tell the truth. As opposed th this “sham show” perpetrated by Adam Schiff and Nancy P. Originally Posted by Jackie S

The courts have nothing to do with any part of the impeachment process.

If you don't know that then you're stupid.

If you do know that then you're a liar.

So which are you?

You could be a stupid liar but let's not complicate things.

you realize that Roberts presides but does not get a vote, yeah? guess who votes to break a tie in the Senate?


Vice President Mike Pence.

116th Congress (2019-2021)
Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (45 seats)
Other Parties: 2 Independents (both caucus with the Democrats)
Total Seats: 100


45 + 2 - 6 = 41. Democrats.


you realize that Roberts will be compelled to force all 6 current Democratic Senators running for President to rescue themselves from voting for the obvious conflict of interest, yeah?


Bennet, Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders and Warren.


the Democrats didn't really think this through, did they? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

How stupid are you?

Stop sucking cock for 5 minutes and get informed.

The former ambassador to the Ukraine testified under oath. Get off your lying, lazy ass and read the transcript.

Just STFU until you have something else true to say about the inquiry. You started off so well but then deteriorated rapidly.

You can now return to your head bobbing.

I look forward to proving you wrong on a regular basis.
As usual. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Jackie is correct and as usual you've been hitting yourself over the head with an empty bottle of ripple.


there are no clearly defined impeachable offenses other than the vague "high crimes and misdemeanors" .. whatever that is. it could be "breathing air". .. or .. 'we lost because our candidate Hillary is a fucking nag and we'll impeach Trump for winning".


which is exactly what it is.


the former ambassador serves at the leisure of the President. disagree and you get fired. her firing doesn't mean shit. her testimony doesn't mean shit.


thank you drunk poster!