Nancy Pelosi Will Hold Off Sending The Articles of Impeachment To The Senate

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Yay....Finally playing fire with fire.

Sissy perceives a pile of shit as a gourmet experience.

Good practice for future latrine activities of the DNC ala PissLousy!

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Absolute idiot! Like a grand jury finding, if it's not submitted then it did not happen. Trump has not been impeached until those articles have been submitted. The senate acts as the jury, the House is the investigator.

It's a fine line the House is walking. Using your grand jury finding, it really comes down to the Impeachment is like an indictment. As soon as the Grand Jury verdict comes back with a vote in the affirmative, the person is indicted(or in this case Impeached). It's then in the hands of the prosecutors to decide to take to cours or not, which at this point is still the House(essentially Pelosi). If they choose not to take it to trial(the Senate), then no guilt is established.

Regardless of the spinning of words, Trump was impeached on two counts via the votes that took place. The remaining games will be played by the prosecutors(the House), and the court(the Senate) as to whether the Impeachment even produces a trial and then what the results of that trial will be. Acquittal(Most likely), or Conviction and removal from office(A pipe dream at best right now).

[lustylad]

One aspect that hasn't been mentioned much - for the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the job of investigating and collecting the facts was relegated to Special Prosecutors instead of being performed by a partisan kangaroo court. In both cases the House voted to impeach after reviewing and debating the findings of the Special Prosecutor. This lent professional credibility and an aura of non-partisanship to the proceedings.

Not this time. The dim-retard controlled House opened an inquiry without even voting on it. They were in way too much of a hurry to appoint a Special Counsel, especially after they tried that with Bob Mueller and he let them down. This is why the whole charade looked so flimsy and amateurish.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eccielover

It's a fine line the House is walking. Using your grand jury finding, it really comes down to the Impeachment is like an indictment. As soon as the Grand Jury verdict comes back with a vote in the affirmative, the person is indicted(or in this case Impeached). It's then in the hands of the prosecutors to decide to take to cours or not, which at this point is still the House(essentially Pelosi). If they choose not to take it to trial(the Senate), then no guilt is established.

Regardless of the spinning of words, Trump was impeached on two counts via the votes that took place. The remaining games will be played by the prosecutors(the House), and the court(the Senate) as to whether the Impeachment even produces a trial and then what the results of that trial will be. Acquittal(Most likely), or Conviction and removal from office(A pipe dream at best right now).

McConnell could do this to force Pelosi’s hand:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gian...the-senate.amp

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by bambino

McConnell could do this to force Pelosi’s hand:

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gian...the-senate.amp

That's where the gamesmanship begins.

And contrary to all the bullshit, the Upper Chamber(The Senate) has the Upper Hand in this at this point.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Originally Posted by bambino

McConnell could do this to force Pelosi’s hand:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gian...the-senate.amp

Yup,
or do nothing and simply let the House resolution die/expire at the end of the congressional term December 2020, as all un-enacted resolutions do (at the end of each congressional term)

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Yup,
or do nothing and simply let the House resolution die/expire at the end of the congressional term December 2020, as all un-enacted resolutions do (at the end of each congressional term)

It's an interesting question on Impeachment. Would it be wiped clean with a new slate at the end of a session? Is it a normal "resolution" to be cleared?

I think the House will be forces by public opinion to move it on before the general election. The timing is the only question and whether the Senate takes actions to force their hand.

[oeb11]

EL - good question - i suspect the Impeachment articles would be dissolved inito nothing if never forwarded to the Senate - as is the fate of other unforwarded legislation
It would be interesting to se a Constitutional law expert (not from DPST harvard) comment.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

It's a fine line the House is walking. Using your grand jury finding, it really comes down to the Impeachment is like an indictment. As soon as the Grand Jury verdict comes back with a vote in the affirmative, the person is indicted(or in this case Impeached). It's then in the hands of the prosecutors to decide to take to cours or not, which at this point is still the House(essentially Pelosi). If they choose not to take it to trial(the Senate), then no guilt is established.

Your analogy falls about when you wrote ...

It's then in the hands of the prosecutors to decide to take to cours (courts?) or not, ....

Except on rare instances THE PROSECUTORS present EVIDENCE to the Grand Jury to determine if there should be an INDICTMENT based ON THE LAW presented by the PROSECUTORS to the Grand Jury.

Grand Jurors don't go out and look for evidence, except in those rare instances in which they are an "investigating" Grand Jury and they rely upon a prosecutor (elected or appointed) for "THE LAW" upon which the charges out to be brought.

In the instant situation ... "the prosecutors" have said the factual allegations are not against the "law" and will not support a conviction.

I've never heard of an instance in which an INDICTMENT was "held" by prosecutors (unless it is a sealed indictment awaiting execution of arrest and/or search warrants for which they don't want the alleged offenders to have prior knowledge) to some indefinite period of time. An independent judge presides over the Grand Jury investigation and deliberations, and subsequently determines that the indictment will be filed, and if the indictment is held from publication it is with the consent and order of the Judge, who must order the disclosure when requested and/or deemed appropriate. Not the prosecutor.

Or a bunch of political, swamp rats trying to protect their friends.

There is ONLY ONE REASON this "indictment" is not going to be filed in the Senate .... it's a sham and absolutely worthless. The DIMWITS KNOW IT!

There is even a more important distinction ... the distinction between English juries from which our jury system generally was based and the American juries ... the former were persons who KNEW the defendant and his or her reputation in the community while the American system has been AND IS based on a selection process that cleanses of the body of anyone who knows the defendant (or potential defendant) and persons who know nothing of the FACTS being investigated or otherwise have any BIAS as to the subject or subject matter.

This latter characteristic is critical to due process and makes it more important that extra measures be taken in impeachment proceedings to avoid the influence of politics, bias, and emotional feelings being injected into the process that will taint the historical basis for adding the process to the Constitution when it was formed.

The impeachment clauses in the Constitution are NOT POLITICAL, but CRIMINALLY LEGAL in purpose. The existing Articles do not allege PROVEN FACTS to support a legal charge of a crime. Speculation and/or groundless, factless presumptions of what "they knew" someone was "thinking"! This DimWit "model" of a criminal justice system is the wet-dream of the DimWit, Socialist, Liberal Destructionists for prosecuting their supporters and their supporters' family members in the future.

"Crimes of what people are thinking" based on groundless presumptions!

I hope SissyChaps enjoys shadow boxing all the way to prison.

[oeb11]

Interesting comment on the sham, slanted political bias of the House committee deliberations.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

One aspect that hasn't been mentioned much - for the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, the job of investigating and collecting the facts was relegated to Special Prosecutors instead of being performed by a partisan kangaroo court. In both cases the House voted to impeach after reviewing and debating the findings of the Special Prosecutor. This lent professional credibility and an aura of non-partisanship to the proceedings.

Not this time. The dim-retard controlled House opened an inquiry without even voting on it. They were in way too much of a hurry to appoint a Special Counsel, especially after they tried that with Bob Mueller and he let them down. This is why the whole charade looked so flimsy and amateurish.

wasn't special counsel mueller a special prosecutor in name?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

wasn't special counsel mueller a special prosecutor in name?

No. The "Special Counsel" and "Special Prosecutor" have two distinct missions and jurisdictions. The former "investigates" and the later "prosecutes." Their authorities are enumerated in two separate statutory schemes. The lamestream/and-not-so lamestream media continually get those concepts confused .... like the do ..

"impeachment" vs. "removal"
"climate change" vs. man-made modification of climate trends

if you notice some of the LOONS on here get them conveniently confused themselves ... as they regurgitate the media stupidity.

BTW: PussLousy will contend that a President under THREAT of existing Articles of Impeachment cannot exercise the Powers of the President of the United States (the DimWits find "objectionable")... like make appointments, sign regulations, conduct foreign policy and negotiations, and otherwise conduct the affairs outlined in the Constitution and HISTORY of the POTUS. That's why she doesn't want to send it over to be summarily SHITCANNED!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by eccielover

That's where the gamesmanship begins.

And contrary to all the bullshit, the Upper Chamber(The Senate) has the Upper Hand in this at this point.

Actually, the Unites States Supreme Court does. "Oversight"!

Amendment V
No person shall .... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;....

Which is why the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presides over the trial in the Senate. The SCOTUS has had historically the task of determining whether or not the actions taken by the legislative branch passes Constitutional requirements and historical precedents. Impeachment is a matter of law violation not a failure of popularity or political direction ... that is up to the voters not elected or appointed or hired swamp rats, who fucked up and sent a bad candidate to get her ass kicked.

And history is repeating herself~!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

No. The "Special Counsel" and "Special Prosecutor" have two distinct missions and jurisdictions. The former "investigates" and the later "prosecutes." Their authorities are enumerated in two separate statutory schemes. The lamestream/and-not-so lamestream media continually get those concepts confused ....

I think you're referring to the difference between Independent Counsel and Special Counsel. I believe the main difference is Independent Counsels report directly to Congress, whereas Special Counsels (such as Mueller) report to the DOJ/Attorney General. Both have investigatory AND prosecutorial powers. Wikipedia explains the difference. I'm too lazy to look it up, so be my guest.

But you're right about the media using the terms inter-changeably. I do too.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Or a bunch of political, swamp rats trying to protect their friends.

There is ONLY ONE REASON this "indictment" is not going to be filed in the Senate .... it's a sham and absolutely worthless. The DIMWITS KNOW IT!

There is even a more important distinction ... the distinction between English juries from which our jury system generally was based and the American juries ... the former were persons who KNEW the defendant and his or her reputation in the community while the American system has been AND IS based on a selection process that cleanses of the body of anyone who knows the defendant (or potential defendant) and persons who know nothing of the FACTS being investigated or otherwise have any BIAS as to the subject or subject matter.

This latter characteristic is critical to due process and makes it more important that extra measures be taken in impeachment proceedings to avoid the influence of politics, bias, and emotional feelings being injected into the process that will taint the historical basis for adding the process to the Constitution when it was formed.

The impeachment clauses in the Constitution are NOT POLITICAL, but CRIMINALLY LEGAL in purpose. The existing Articles do not allege PROVEN FACTS to support a legal charge of a crime. Speculation and/or groundless, factless presumptions of what "they knew" someone was "thinking"! This DimWit "model" of a criminal justice system is the wet-dream of the DimWit, Socialist, Liberal Destructionists for prosecuting their supporters and their supporters' family members in the future.

"Crimes of what people are thinking" based on groundless presumptions!

I hope SissyChaps enjoys shadow boxing all the way to prison.

YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT. On the one hand you say "the American system has been AND IS based on a selection process that cleanses of the body of anyone who knows the defendant (or potential defendant) and persons who know nothing of the FACTS being investigated or otherwise have any BIAS as to the subject or subject matter.", and on the other side of the same hand you say "The impeachment clauses in the Constitution are NOT POLITICAL, but CRIMINALLY LEGAL in purpose."

The left hand says: This is not a matter for the Judiciary. Just the Cheif of it. This is a battle "royale" of the highest order. It is all up to the Legislature.

So which is it? Is the jury composed of a clean slate of respondents in a criminal proceeeing? Or will this be a political matter where the jurors already have been presented with the evidence but are just waiting to be asked if that is enough to extricate the POTUS?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

BTW: PussLousy will contend that a President under THREAT of existing Articles of Impeachment cannot exercise the Powers of the President of the United States (the DimWits find "objectionable")... like make appointments, sign regulations, conduct foreign policy and negotiations, and otherwise conduct the affairs outlined in the Constitution and HISTORY of the POTUS. That's why she doesn't want to send it over to be summarily SHITCANNED!

What evidence do you have to make such an assertion? Are you assuming her next move? Did you anticipate her stalling the impeachment in the House?

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, the Unites States Supreme Court does. "Oversight"!



Which is why the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court presides over the trial in the Senate. The SCOTUS has had historically the task of determining whether or not the actions taken by the legislative branch passes Constitutional requirements and historical precedents.

Only when a law is passed will the SCOTUS determine "whether or not the actions taken by the legislative branch passes Constitutional requirements and historical precedents." The only thing needed now is to just follow the Constitution. So far, Nancy has done her part.

Impeachment is a matter of law violation not a failure of popularity or political direction ... that is up to the voters not elected or appointed or hired swamp rats, who fucked up and sent a bad candidate to get her ass kicked.

And history is repeating herself~!

Impeachment is a matter for the majority in the House. With the majority of the people in favor of impeachment, he hereby stands impeached. Your move, counselor.