Why the House is moving forward with impeachment

I doubt the Republican majority while it lasts will be willing to hand Mdme. Organic Ice Cream a victory, regardless of how much they hate Trump.

 

The

 

It's not a game.

 

….and spoil their own chances at reelection......

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe the voters will recognize the game is afoot. Or they will just sit at home and shout at the TV.

 

Seems like "inciting a riot" would be awfully hard to prove. Since Trump didn't say "go kill someone" it would require assuming that someone reads someone else's mind. Actually Kama-la's words that the BLM riots "shouldn't stop" were more implicit. Should we impeach her??? Dems are going down a dangerous path if they do this. Biden will have to watch every word he says, which will not be an easy thing for him, especially if Republicans win the house in 2022.

 

Dream on....


The "game" is over

 

The lock him/her up lemmings will continue to bleat their support for using incarceration as a political weapon. Of course, it will eventually be used against you and will then be ba'a'a'd!

 

Based on this...

It was mentioned in another thread that he needs to have SS protection because he knows state secrets and we don't want him to be kidnapped for that information. In that regard, I don't see why that protection wouldn't be there even if he is successfully impeached. Granted, we have quite a bit to revamp based on the liberties Trump has taken while in office.

 

I doubt the game is over. Our politicians will continue to fling poo at each other for our viewing pleasure until they close our casket lids and throw dirt in our faces. Some of our more useful idiots on both sides will even suit up and do battle in the streets. That should be fun to watch.

 

The law? What on earth are you babbling on about not??

 

Hmm.. Why would you want to humiliate anyone? This of course, sounds a lot like a threat. Gosh......

 

Contempt of Congress is not a criminal act, and Congress has no authority to charge a President with a crime under US law.
It can impeach and remove him, but that's it.

The real impetus behind the house moving toward another impeachment?
Dem pettiness and petulance.

 

Try looking things up rather than spreading manure. Not doing so makes you look lazy and willfully ignorant.

 

Translation:
You cannot meaningfully respond to what I said.
Disagree?
Describe to us, with references, the procedure through which Congress can bring criminal charges against a current or past President - that is, formally bring charges against him in a court of law - that extend past its capacity to impeach and remove.

 

(But remember, even if a President could pardon himself, those pardons don't apply to impeachment proceedings).

The BIGGEST incentive for the House, at least, to pass an article of impeachment, I think, is to have that bullet, "in the chamber," so to speak, as a deterrent to Trump's pushing the envelope any farther, before leaving office.

Since the necessary, & important, work of politics, must consider the fickle, shifting sands of public opinion, in order to get that work done, it additionally makes sense for the House to act while Trump is still in office. I was actually surprised to hear one scholar opine that the President's leaving office would not preclude the House taking up an article of impeachment (so I guess Democrats could still impeach G. W. Bush; Republicans could, one day, impeach Obama). Legal or not, that would not seem to make sense-- unlike conducting a Senate trial for a President out of office, on a House impeachment which was passed while he had still been serving-- & would appear as a partisan maneuver more than it needs to, than if that article is passed while the danger still looms large.

Finally, from another practical perspective, once the Senate is controlled by the Dems (w/ Kamala Harris's swearing-in), they will have a ton of work to do. But with McConnell, for the moment, still in charge in the Senate, this is the most opportune time to take a couple of days to try to ensure the continuance of American democracy.

 

Once a president is out of office crimes committed can be taken care of in normal courts. The problem here is that he could test the powers of the president by pardoning himself and then the only option left is an impeachment trial or challenging his pardon which could take a long time and by impeaching him now it will let him know that he's not off Scott free, faces jail time and maybe he'll lay low and with time break his hold over people as they see things exposed in state courts. Also the knowledge that if convicted it'll cost him his pension and perks may stay his mouth and thumbs a bit. Top it off, the day he announces another run for president is the day the House passes the articles on to the Senate for trial and you can bet Republican Senators are not going to be lining up to defend him this time.

 

Did Nancy even SHOW UP today after grandstanding all over MSM and 60 Minutes all weekend? If so where the F was she in the chamber? Some serious "in peach fo fi" going on there, I'll tell you.

 

Actually not possible. The Senate is in recess. To take up the impeachment trial before the end of Trump's term, they would have to agree, all 100 senators, to come back earlier, and there is no way Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley will be on board, so all 100 is excluded. At the end of the recess (1/1 if they receive the article(s) of impeachment, by rule they have to have 24 hours to consider it, and then trial beings the next day at 1 PM, that is, on 1/20/2021 at 1 PM at the very earliest (which is confirmed by a memo Mitch sent to all senators this past week). Coincidentally, 1 hour after Trump has left office. This is not to say that trial wouldn't be able to still happen. As long as the official being tried in the Senate was still holding his position when he was impeached by the House, the Senate can hold a delayed trial even after the person has left the office, including because removal from office is not the only punishment possible in a senatorial impeachment trial (for someone previously impeached by the House): the loss of political rights to run for office is also among the two possible punishments.

 

What the hell are you talking about? Monday, it was just the presentation of the article. The actual impeachment vote is scheduled for Wednesday. Pelosi will be there. According to Pelosi, she wanted to give Tuesday to Pence to invoke the 25th. He won't, then the impeachment vote happens Wednesday.

 

Just two quick points. The first is that, despite all the ill-will Dems have for the Trump-man, I do believe that their #1 concern, right now, is what MORE Trump might do, while he's still in office. Since having an article already passed through the House, ready to be sent to the Senate on practically a moment's notice, I have heard described as something that Democrats believe will exert an inhibiting influence upon the President, this is the top reason, I think, for the House moving NOW, if they can't get the even safer result of having him OUT of office, which is only realistic through either an exercising of the 25th Amendment (not likely) or President Trump's resignation (what's in it for him?).

The second thing was more picayune, but anything that passes one side of Congress (& I have no reason to believe that this would not, also, apply to articles of impeachment), needs to be acted upon by the same Congress (i.e., in the same year's session) in order to be valid. So this year's House impeachment must have its trial by this year's Senate, or it becomes void.

 

The new senate and new House were just seated a week ago, if what you say is correct then that's two years until the midterms. One would hope it's all moot by then.

 

You must be tired, you misread my post. This thread is asking why the HOUSE is taking up impeachment NOW. In all the threads in which I've commented on this, I've made the point that it is utterly unrealistic to believe McConnell would expedite things to make a Senate verdict at all possible before Biden's inauguration. My point, which you quoted, was saying that, with the case being what I just described, it still makes more sense for the House to take care of its part of impeachment before the Senate comes under Democratic control (when Harris officially becomes VP) than after. This is because, until that point (whether or not the Senate is in session) nothing else they might do is going to move to the Senate floor, anyway. So, with this already taken care of by the House-- besides hopefully being an inducement for Trump to behave during his final days in office-- it will mean they won't have to spend time on it when they will actually have a Senate that's willing to work together, with them. You see?

One other discrepency between our info: apparently, just McConnell & Schumer could summon the Senate back in session any time they wanted to, if they agreed to. It wouldn't be contingent upon any other Senators' agreement. It's an academic point, though, because I think we both know Mitch ain't goin' for that.

 

That's not the way it's calculated. Every year, it's a new House & Senate SESSION, e.g., all votes in 2019 were part of the 115th Congress; 2020's session (Jan, 3rd - 1/3/21) was the 116th Congress; we're now beginning this year's 117th Congress.

 

Still, more time than Garland's vote held up.

Barely.