How to End Impeachment NOW

The Senate can not force the House to give up impeachment. The Senate can vote not to convict.
"The House of Representatives shall...have the Sole Power of Impeachment." US Constitution Article I,Section 2, Paragraph 6.

There is another way to stop impeachment called the Nixon option.

 

A 'true conservative" would never do that

A Trump lapdog might.

McConnell is actually neither. He's a CONNIVING PARTISAN ...but that's a bridge too far

 

Along the West Coast, where conservatives have no real power, they are constantly trying to recall Democratic politicians. As far as I can tell, they only succeeded in California with Gray Davis. They repeated tried to recall Jerry Brown and are gearing up to try to recall Gavin Newsom. Kate Brown was reelected in 2018 in Oregon and conservatives have already tried twice to force a recall, but failed, as was the case in her last term. When Jay Inslee was first elected to governor of Washington, he couldn't take office for several months because Republicans threw a bunch of law suits to prevent him. Failing that they have several times, tried to recall him.


Here on the West Coast, we know what kind of scoundrels Republicans are.

 

You are kidding yourself with the majority bit

 

And the left get their info from CNN, MSNBC and from what appears to be a big voice, career leftist propaganda shovel'rs that make PF their home

 

Naaah that's politics to Republicans. Lying, cheating, stealing, why that's Democracy in Action. Next they'll just have a wrestling match, oh wait, they did that already.

And how to end impeachment, why lets just SHOOT all the Democratic reps, and we can send alt the publs home too. We only need ONE man in government HAIL TRUMP I. Look at how great America is without all that pesky freedom
R

 

Makes you wonder how soaps got so popular Some audience's love to judge, hate and NEVER miss an episode!

 

There you go! When it comes to Blow jobs and sex, just be honest and smile at the camera and say "Hell yeaaa, I totally hit that shlt"!

 

However it is people who listen to the likes of Mark Levin tend to have opinions that don't square with reality.

You can believe what you want, but it does not make it true

 

I bet Californacation see's it everyday while driving past tent cities and walk around piles of hoboclumps and past the Home depot where 30 illegal migrant workers chase after pickup trucks...

 

Reality? This is politics, that sort of nonsense hasn't been used in almost two decades..

 

Mark Levin likes to spread the global warming is a hoax silliness. Did he not tell you over and over how Hillary was committing crimes, and how she was going to jail. Does he not promote this silly charade where it is pretended that Trump didn't and isn't cooperating with and benefiting from Russian interference.

I'm sure he told you all about how two of Trump's operatives were recently caught funneling Russian money into Trump's campaign.

Isn't he one of those who is claiming that the impeachment inquiring is all being done in secret, without any Republicans. And on and on.

 

Ya like I have posted. If I were to have taken Climatologist at their word I would already starved and those left alive would be experiencing another man made ICE AGE.. The only difference between a leftist and rightist is they learn from previous inaccuracies and bullshit propaganda

 

So what you are implying is that there are NOT 2 Branches of Congress.
The House and the Senate.PArdon me Moi but it's the Senate who
holds the trial and convicts or does not convict.
The Senate can also adapt as did the House how it will
behave in the Impeachment clause.Granted an Impeachment of a POTUS
originates in the House but McConnell can ask for a vote to change Senate
rules regarding this.And bypass the PArlimentarian who will point out it
takes a full vote and supermajority or 67 Yay's.Then McConnell can
affirm his right of Nuclear Option and ask for simple majority or
51 Yay's.However the Dems could refuse to vote and not show up
for a vote or leave the floor.

 

Trump CAN be indicted. There's nothing in the Constitution or the law that says he can't. It's just common practice that presidents aren't, and in all but a few cases it was never even a concern throughout our history.

 

Levin as well Joe di Genova spelled out how Hillary broke the
Espionage Act.Plus lying about having classified E-mails
and of course destroying evidence { missing E-Mails
and destroying devices } Plus how James Comey also broke
protocol and he himself instead of the AG Loretta Lynch made the
call to announce Hillary's exoneration from being charged.Right there
Comey should have been fired.Comey also was not present during
Hillary's Saturday { at he convenience } FBI Interview.Where there
was no transcript made or Video used and Hillary's lawyer
Cheryl Mills was allowed to sit in.
Levin and Joe di Genova have been utterly spot-on about what
The Dems and Obama's Deep State has been pulling.
Another stunt was the changing of the Whistleblower status
from First Hand knowledge to 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge.

 

Levin is insane. Besides, McConnell has already stated that he'll move ahead with a trial, if the House passes a "bill of impeachment."

 

Sorry Charlie { Stardust Tuna Commercial } but Judge Napolitano
is wrong and the Justice Dept. had to comply with the 3 decisions on
Indicting a POTUS 2 of which state that our Founders were dead set
against.Because it *Impales the ability of a sitting president to perform
his duties while awaiting trial.

* to make helpless as if pierced through.

 

Agreed.

If they keep stalling, Americans see it.

If they follow through, they get put on the stand under oath.

If the Senate intervenes (which may be precisely what the House wants), it creates optics that Republicans are subverting Democracy.

Never interupt the opposition when they busy with destroying themselves.

Patience will win this one.

 

McConnell said weeks ago that he will lead Republican efforts to
STOP President Trump from being removed from office.
This on Sept. 27th ,3 days after Pelosi announced her Impeachment move.

 

It's an open issue. The current DoJ policy on non-indictment was written by a DoJ Clinton appointee, now sitting on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Would Mueller have challenged the policy? Questionable, since it would have meant overriding his boss. Remember, under the current Special Counsel rule, releasing ANY part of the Mueller report was up to Attorney General Barr. I do think that had Mueller found evidence that Trump was involved in a Russian conspiracy - a smoking gun - he may have challenged Barr. As it was, he clearly left "evidence to date" on obstruction and left it up to either Barr, Congress, or some future prosecutor to pursue.
Granted, it's debatable on indicting a sitting President and whether or not such would be constitutional. I tend to think that there are two separate procedures: impeachment and criminal prosecution and that they may or may not be related. IMO, a President could be impeached, convicted and removed from office without a criminal indictment. Or, conversely, he could be criminally indicted and convicted and not impeached. If the latter case, Congress would be under enormous pressure to remove him from office, rather than have him running the country from a jail cell. The crux of the argument seems to be the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Given the history of the phrase, "high crimes" may mean crimes by high ranking people in government. And, "misdemeanors" wasn't used as a "criminal offense" in 1787, as it is used in criminal law today.
For a couple of good reads on the subject: "The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis," Michael J. Gerhardt, Princeton University Press, 1996 and "Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems," Raoul Berger, Harvard University Press, 1973. There is also a newer book out on the Johnson impeachment, "The Impeachers: The Trial of Andrew Johnson and the Dream of a Just Nation," Brenda Wineapple, Random House, 2019.

 

He also has said he'll respect the process, which means acting on a House bill of impeachment...i.e. a trial. He would certainly have a role in setting the calendar, informing Chief Justice Roberts, etc., but other than that, he would be like the other 99 Senators, with one vote regarding what to quit on and what to convict on.

 

Where and When did McConnell say " he'll respect the process ". ?
I find that highly unlikely since the Dems have broke all sort
of Impeachment Protocol as to previous Impeachment.

 

McConnell is not likely to forget what Shenanigans the Democrat Senators
pulled last year at this time over Supreme Court Nominee ,Kavanaugh.
Nor the 3 Democrat Senators { Menendez,Leahy,Durbin } signed letter
to The Ukraine demanding they still Investigate Trump or else { May,2018 }.

 

Lol, no. Why is it that righties are completely clueless about the constitution?