Traveler

Impeachment question for experts

Recommended Posts

I understand that the House has the power to define the articles of impeachment - but the trying of impeachment happens in the Senate.   So my question for lawyers - @Just_A_Guy or anyone else -- Can the Senate dismiss the charges because the house refused to deliver them within a reasonable amount of time.  If it is determined that charges can be brought by the House to the Senate on time but that the speaker refused to complete the charges by having them delivered - can the charges be dismissed?  

I am not an expert in law - but it seems to me that the House; in refusal to deliver the articles of impeachment -- that such could open the door to be grounds for the Senate to dismiss the articles?  I see where it is established (always in the past) to walk the articles of impeachment from the House to the Senate as soon as the articles are passed.  By refusing to follow establish procedure - does the Senate have the power?  Could the motion be presented to dismiss the charges on that ground and a simple majority vote end it?   As I understand the Senate pretty much has to power to make whatever rules they want for their part in impeachment - just as the House had power to make rules for their part.  Does the Senate have to wait on the House one the vote was completed in the House?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Traveler said:

it seems to me that the House; in refusal to deliver the articles of impeachment -- that such could open the door to be grounds for the Senate to dismiss the articles

Until the articles of impeachment have been delivered to the Senate, no impeachment has taken place. As of today, Donald Trump has not been impeached, no matter what you read on CNN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2019 at 2:57 AM, Vort said:

Until the articles of impeachment have been delivered to the Senate, no impeachment has taken place. As of today, Donald Trump has not been impeached, no matter what you read on CNN.

Not that fast.  This can actually be argued.  Interestingly, there are 2 schools of thought on this one... the witness for the pro-impeachment crowd of the Congressional hearing wrote an article stating that if the articles are not submitted to the Senate, the impeachment has not occurred, stating that although the House has full authority over impeachment and the Senate has full authority over the trial to remove from office, the bridge between the two is part of the Impeachment procedure obligated on the House (even as it is not in the House's rules of procedure but in the Senate's). 

Interestingly, the witness for the anti-impeachment crowd of the same hearing responded that, yep, the President has been impeached regardless of whether the articles are sent to/accepted by/tried in the Senate because Impeachment is completely within the House's purview and has nothing at all to do with any activity that involves the Senate, meaning - if the House decides to impeach but doesn't want for the thing to go on trial, it's completely within their purview and the President is still impeached even as the impeachment is not tried (same as if it fails in trial).

I'll find links to both articles if you need it.  It's New Year's Eve.  I don't feel like digging them up.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Interestingly, the witness for the anti-impeachment crowd of the same hearing responded that, yep, the President has been impeached regardless of whether the articles are sent to/accepted by/tried in the Senate because Impeachment is completely within the House's purview and has nothing at all to do with any activity that involves the Senate, meaning - if the House decides to impeach but doesn't want for the thing to go on trial, it's completely within their purview and the President is still impeached even as the impeachment is not tried (same as if it fails in trial).

My understanding is that "impeachment" means the formal political leveling of charges against the President by the House. This happens when articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate. Until that time, no such formal leveling of charges has taken place. The Senate need not vote or even act at all on those articles, but until it receives them, there has been no impeachment.

I invite corrections by those who might know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Vort said:

My understanding is that "impeachment" means the formal political leveling of charges against the President by the House. This happens when articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate. Until that time, no such formal leveling of charges has taken place. The Senate need not vote or even act at all on those articles, but until it receives them, there has been no impeachment.

I invite corrections by those who might know better.

There is no House procedure that requires for the articles of impeachment to be delivered to the Senate.  That procedure is in the Senate.  So, it can be argued that the Speaker gaveling the impeachment vote concludes the impeachment.  

Here's the news article that covers both Noah Feldman's (pro-impeachment witness) viewpoint and Jonathan Turley's (anti-impeachment witness) viewpoint on the legal matter.  Note that pro-impeachment Feldman is who is saying Trump was not impeached while anti-impeachment Turley is the one saying he was impeached.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to note why the processes are working the way they are:

- The House is run by democrats, and everything is done to help the Dems and hurt the Republicans in the next election.
- The Senate is run by republicans, and everything is done to help them and hurt the Dems in the next election.

So it's a timing issue.  About who will own the narrative and control the media cycles in that sweet spot of October/November 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's important to note why the processes are working the way they are:

- The House is run by democrats, and everything is done to help the Dems and hurt the Republicans in the next election.
- The Senate is run by republicans, and everything is done to help them and hurt the Dems in the next election.

So it's a timing issue.  About who will own the narrative and control the media cycles in that sweet spot of October/November 2020.

You would think this is the case.  But it's not.  Because impeachment, especially with this kind of flimsy ground, is a lose-lose situation.  Nancy Pelosi knows this.  This is not about the 2020 election.  This is about the 2016 election and Crowdstrike that the DNC handed its "hacked servers" to instead of the FBI.  Everybody keeps on saying it's an alt-right Conspiracy Theory that Crowdstrike blamed the hacking on Russia (which is part of the origins of the Russian Collusion narrative) and the FBI prevented from looking into the servers to cover up the information that Hillary cheated Bernie out of the Primaries.  Yet Assange repeatedly stated Wikileaks did not get the DNC emails from Russia and hinted at Seth Rich... The Russian collusion narrative imploded, so it's not as much an alt-right conspiracy theory anymore at this point.  The Dems going all out on impeachment after finding out the Trump requested Zelensky's cooperation on investigating Crowdstrike makes the conspiracy theory seems like it is hovering over the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You would think this is the case.  But it's not.  Because impeachment, especially with this kind of flimsy ground, is a lose-lose situation.  Nancy Pelosi knows this.  This is not about the 2020 election.  This is about the 2016 election and Crowdstrike that the DNC handed its "hacked servers" to instead of the FBI.  Everybody keeps on saying it's an alt-right Conspiracy Theory that Crowdstrike blamed the hacking on Russia (which is part of the origins of the Russian Collusion narrative) and the FBI prevented from looking into the servers to cover up the information that Hillary cheated Bernie out of the Primaries.  Yet Assange repeatedly stated Wikileaks did not get the DNC emails from Russia and hinted at Seth Rich... The Russian collusion narrative imploded, so it's not as much an alt-right conspiracy theory anymore at this point.  The Dems going all out on impeachment after finding out the Trump requested Zelensky's cooperation on investigating Crowdstrike makes the conspiracy theory seems like it is hovering over the target.

This.  So much this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mores
On 12/31/2019 at 10:45 AM, Vort said:

My understanding is that "impeachment" means the formal political leveling of charges against the President by the House. This happens when articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate. Until that time, no such formal leveling of charges has taken place. The Senate need not vote or even act at all on those articles, but until it receives them, there has been no impeachment.

I invite corrections by those who might know better.

 

On 12/31/2019 at 10:52 AM, anatess2 said:

There is no House procedure that requires for the articles of impeachment to be delivered to the Senate.  That procedure is in the Senate.  So, it can be argued that the Speaker gaveling the impeachment vote concludes the impeachment.  

Here's the news article that covers both Noah Feldman's (pro-impeachment witness) viewpoint and Jonathan Turley's (anti-impeachment witness) viewpoint on the legal matter.  Note that pro-impeachment Feldman is who is saying Trump was not impeached while anti-impeachment Turley is the one saying he was impeached.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html

I really don't think anything anyone says about this matters.  It really is one for the history books whether he's considered "impeached" or not.  That will be the only thing that really matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mores said:

 

I really don't think anything anyone says about this matters.  It really is one for the history books whether he's considered "impeached" or not.  That will be the only thing that really matters.

Regardless, their failure to push this to the senate confirms it was simply political grandstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mores said:

I really don't think anything anyone says about this matters.  It really is one for the history books whether he's considered "impeached" or not.  That will be the only thing that really matters.

I'm with you.  "First impeached president to win re-election" will matter too, as it will be an unmistakable signal to democrats that America is sick of their crap and won't put up with it any more.  But yeah, 10 years down the road nobody will care, it'll just be "vote Dem, we've only had one president impeached!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm with you.  "First impeached president to win re-election" will matter too, as it will be an unmistakable signal to democrats that America is sick of their crap and won't put up with it any more.  But yeah, 10 years down the road nobody will care, it'll just be "vote Dem, we've only had one president impeached!"

I'm not even close to being convinced that Trump has a chance this election.  It's way too early to tell.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not even close to being convinced that Trump has a chance this election.  It's way too early to tell.

A chance?  Heck yeah!  He won election 2016 without a record.  Having the first-term record he has is a giant weight in his chance bucket. 

Will he win?  Too early to tell.  If it's Bernie or Warren on the other side, he'll win.

P.S.  If you mean he won't have a chance because the Senate will remove him from office - I can agree with you on that.  It's too early to tell if the Republican Senators like Romney and Graham will/won't caucus with the Dems on that one.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/27/2019 at 12:57 AM, Vort said:

Until the articles of impeachment have been delivered to the Senate, no impeachment has taken place. As of today, Donald Trump has not been impeached, no matter what you read on CNN.

I despise cnn, but the president has been officially Impeached. Impeachment is not removing the president from office, but laying down charges meant to remove an elected official from office. The House can Impeach the President without any input from the Senate. However, only the Senate can officially try and remove a president from office, which happens after impeachment. In order to do this, they need the articles of impeachment from the house, which are akin to charges when a crime is committed. If the senate were to move forward now it is like a judge making a judgement in court without having any charges or evidence laid before them. A judge can't make you pay a fine without having someone accuse you of misconduct. The evidence will then be reviewed by the judge and you will be found innocent or guilty. The President has been impeached...but it really is moot at this point because it means nothing without a Senate trial, and she knows the senate will not move forward with removing the president. She moved forward with this for nothing more than grandstanding...it is the only thing she can do. Rallying her base who don't like the the president because his name is Donald Trump. They can now say he is an impeached president, which in their mind is a black mark, but really means nothing without a trial. Clinton was impeached, but not removed from office by the senate, and the democrats all point to this as proof that the right was just out to get him...she does not want this to be said of Trump.

Methinks a trial will not happen this year, and pelosi will just sit on what she has continuing to say the president has been impeached and whining about other kinds of crap. She hopes that next year the democrats take over the house, at which point she will then send the articles over so a democratic controlled senate to try and remove the president. It won't happen that easily, but that is what she's going to fall back on as her plan B...assuming republicans don't win back the house of course.

Edited by scottyg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I despise cnn, but the president has been officially Impeached. Impeachment is not removing the president from office, but laying down charges meant to remove an elected official from office. The House can Impeach the President without any input from the Senate

I agree with all this. Doesn't change my point. Until the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, my understanding is that the House has not impeached the President. Impeachment means formally accusing the President of wrongdoing. That formal accusation does not consist in press briefings, or even in a House vote, but in delivering the approved articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Again, I welcome correction from those who know better. But to those who would correct me, please read and understand what I have written before informing me that the House has indeed impeached Trump because the House don't need no permission from the Senate to impeach. That is true but irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with all this. Doesn't change my point. Until the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, my understanding is that the House has not impeached the President. Impeachment means formally accusing the President of wrongdoing. That formal accusation does not consist in press briefings, or even in a House vote, but in delivering the approved articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Again, I welcome correction from those who know better. But to those who would correct me, please read and understand what I have written before informing me that the House has indeed impeached Trump because the House don't need no permission from the Senate to impeach. That is true but irrelevant.

Uhm, the House does not need the Senate to impeach.  That is VERY relevant in the other side of this argument.

Article 1, Section 2 specifically states that "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment".  Senate rules, therefore, has no bearing on whether a President is impeached or not.  The procedure requiring immediate delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate is a Senate rule, not a House rule - so this is a valid argument.

Your side of the argument attaches an implied requirement to the House to deliver the articles to the Senate (that connects the two requirements of the full impeachment in the Constitution that includes the trial) as part of the Impeachment inquiry process - which is also a valid argument.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with all this. Doesn't change my point. Until the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate, my understanding is that the House has not impeached the President. Impeachment means formally accusing the President of wrongdoing. That formal accusation does not consist in press briefings, or even in a House vote, but in delivering the approved articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Again, I welcome correction from those who know better. But to those who would correct me, please read and understand what I have written before informing me that the House has indeed impeached Trump because the House don't need no permission from the Senate to impeach. That is true but irrelevant.

You missed my point. My correction is in what I posted. The house impeaches; the senate removes. He has been impeached as the house has accused him of wrongdoing. They do not have to send the articles to the senate to "confirm" or "finalize" or "validate" an impeachment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Uhm, the House does not need the Senate to impeach.  That is VERY relevant in the other side of this argument.

Article 1, Section 2 specifically states that "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment".  Senate rules, therefore, has no bearing on whether a President is impeached or not.  The procedure requiring immediate delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate is a Senate rule, not a House rule. 

Unbelievable.

3 minutes ago, scottyg said:

You missed my point. My correction is in what I posted. The house impeaches; the senate removes. He has been impeached as the house has accused him of wrongdoing. They do not have to send the articles to the senate to "confirm" or "finalize" or "validate" an impeachment. 

Doubly unbelievable.

Does no one actually read what's posted any more?

Scotty, the House has not accused Trump of wrongdoing. No formal accusation has been made. None. If you think it has, point it out to me. Hint: Holding a vote does not constitute a formal accusation. The Speaker of the House shooting her mouth off doesn't constitute formal accusation.

What does constitute formal accusation, aka impeachment?

Delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate. That constitutes a formal accusation, or in other words, impeachment.

How much clearer can I make it?

If you disagree with me, fine. If you can show that I'm wrong, that's even better. But quit "disagreeing" with me by saying that the House impeaches alone. Seriously, folks, that has exactly zero to do with my point. If you are unable to understand that very basic point, I'm afraid conversation is futile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Unbelievable.

Doubly unbelievable.

Does no one actually read what's posted any more?

Scotty, the House has not accused Trump of wrongdoing. No formal accusation has been made. None. If you think it has, point it out to me. Hint: Holding a vote does not constitute a formal accusation. The Speaker of the House shooting her mouth off doesn't constitute formal accusation.

What does constitute formal accusation, aka impeachment?

Delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate. That constitutes a formal accusation, or in other words, impeachment.

WHAT???  

Yes, you can argue that the formal accusation is not complete until the articles are delivered to the Senate - this is not a House Rule, but you can argue that it is implied in the Constitution to bridge the gap between the House Impeachment and the Senate Trial.  But to say that the APPROVAL of an article of impeachment does not constitute a formal accusation is just simply ridiculous.  The gaveling of the vote in the House is the impeachment equivalent to a grand jury indictment.

 

Quote

 

How much clearer can I make it?

If you disagree with me, fine. If you can show that I'm wrong, that's even better. But quit "disagreeing" with me by saying that the House impeaches alone. Seriously, folks, that has exactly zero to do with my point. If you are unable to understand that very basic point, I'm afraid conversation is futile.

I don't disagree with you.  I'm showing you the other side of the argument - equally valid.  If you're just going to scoff at it, then I guess conversation is futile.

By the way, I edited my post above in case you want to continue discussion.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Unbelievable.

Doubly unbelievable.

Does no one actually read what's posted any more?

Scotty, the House has not accused Trump of wrongdoing. No formal accusation has been made. None. If you think it has, point it out to me. Hint: Holding a vote does not constitute a formal accusation. The Speaker of the House shooting her mouth off doesn't constitute formal accusation.

What does constitute formal accusation, aka impeachment?

Delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate. That constitutes a formal accusation, or in other words, impeachment.

How much clearer can I make it?

If you disagree with me, fine. If you can show that I'm wrong, that's even better. But quit "disagreeing" with me by saying that the House impeaches alone. Seriously, folks, that has exactly zero to do with my point. If you are unable to understand that very basic point, I'm afraid conversation is futile.

What the others are saying is that the Formal Accusation is the affirmative vote on the Articles of Impeachment.. not in the delivery of said Articles to the Senate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, anatess2 said:

But to say that the APPROVAL of an article of impeachment does not constitute a formal accusation is just simply ridiculous.  The gaveling of the vote in the House is the impeachment equivalent to a grand jury indictment.

No, it is not. Upon a grand jury indictment, a trial can begin. Upon the House's gaveling of the vote...nothing at all can take place. Nothing. Just people venting hot air. The progress of the proceedings requires delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Until that happens, things can't move on. The Senate can and will convene no trial for the President until they receive the articles of impeachment.

In other words: The Senate will not try the President UNTIL THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED. If, as you claim, the President is impeached at this very moment, even as we speak, that means that the Senate can try the President right now.

But the Senate can do no such thing. As of this moment, there's nothing to try the President on. Why not? Because the President has not yet been impeached. If he had, the Senate could proceed.

The House can wait for four years to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, at which point the President is impeached. But not before.

For at least the third time: If you can show me to be mistaken, by all means do so. But quit arguing that the fact that the House is solely responsible for impeachment somehow means that Trump has been impeached. It does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

What the others are saying is that the Formal Accusation is the affirmative vote on the Articles of Impeachment.. not in the delivery of said Articles to the Senate

If the affirmative vote constitutes impeachment, then by Constitutional stipulation, the Senate can now act on that impeachment and hold a trial.

Can the Senate now hold a trial based on the House's approved articles of impeachment?

No.

Why not?

Because they, the Senate, have not yet received any articles of impeachment, so there's nothing to try the President on.

So, therefore...?

No impeachment has yet taken place.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, it is not. Upon a grand jury indictment, a trial can begin. Upon the House's gaveling of the vote...nothing at all can take place. Nothing.   

Article 1, Section 2 again:  House has SOLE POWER over Impeachment.  An Impeachment, therefore, does not include the trial.

Impeachment is THE THING.  Therefore, it is not NOTHING.  "The President is Impeached" does not require anything else to happen after that.

 

Quote

 

Just people venting hot air. The progress of the proceedings requires delivery of the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Until that happens, things can't move on. The Senate can and will convene no trial for the President until they receive the articles of impeachment. 

In other words: The Senate will not try the President UNTIL THE PRESIDENT IS IMPEACHED. If, as you claim, the President is impeached at this very moment, even as we speak, that means that the Senate can try the President right now.

Incorrect.  The delivery procedure is a Senate procedure.  Therefore, they can change the Senate Rule to start trial or dismiss without the delivery of the articles to the Senate if it goes beyond X days that the Senate considers to be beyond the definition of "immediate".  President is still Impeached because the House says he is and they have the sole power over that which, currently, doesn't require a delivery in the House procedures.

 

Quote

The House can wait for four years to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate, at which point the President is impeached. But not before.

And like I've said to you before... THAT's debateable because the current procedures in the House do not have such requirement.  The requirement is in the Senate that has no power over impeachment.

 

Quote

For at least the third time: If you can show me to be mistaken, by all means do so. But quit arguing that the fact that the House is solely responsible for impeachment somehow means that Trump has been impeached. It does not.

And for the 3rd time, I'm not telling you you are mistaken.  I'm telling you your position is debateable.  Or, in other words, Trump can take such position to the Supreme Court to argue that he is not impeached.  I merely presented to you the other side of the argument - equally valid.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Unbelievable.

Doubly unbelievable.

Does no one actually read what's posted any more?

Scotty, the House has not accused Trump of wrongdoing. No formal accusation has been made. None. If you think it has, point it out to me. Hint: Holding a vote does not constitute a formal accusation. The Speaker of the House shooting her mouth off doesn't constitute formal accusation.

What does constitute formal accusation, aka impeachment?

Delivery of articles of impeachment to the Senate. That constitutes a formal accusation, or in other words, impeachment.

How much clearer can I make it?

If you disagree with me, fine. If you can show that I'm wrong, that's even better. But quit "disagreeing" with me by saying that the House impeaches alone. Seriously, folks, that has exactly zero to do with my point. If you are unable to understand that very basic point, I'm afraid conversation is futile.

Does no one actually read what's posted any more? Well...apparently not.

Impeachment is not removal from office

Impeachment is completely separate form a senate trial

Vort, the House has accused Trump of wrongdoing. A formal accusation has been made. Holding a vote does constitute a formal accusation. The articles of impeachment voted upon are formal charges of wrongdoing. They are as follows:

1. Abuse of Power.

2. Obstruction of Congress.

They DO NOT have to go to the senate to be formalized. If you disagree with me, fine. If you can show that I'm wrong, that's even better.

Sorry my friend, but your mind already seems to be closed on this, and I cannot make it any clear either...so I will be leaving you and this topic with this in regards to Impeachment

 

Inigo2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now