Why the House is moving forward with impeachment

Oh, OK. Yes, I misread it. The House does need to do it now because the only way a person who is no longer in office can be tried by the Senate is if the House procedure starts while the person is still in office. Otherwise the person is a private citizen and Congress no longer has jurisdiction.

McConnell's memo says that to bring them back he needs the agreement of all 100. I don't know if he made it up or if it's in the rules.

 

I didn't hear anything like that, about the, "memo," only that McConnell-- probably just as a way of telegraphing to the Dems that any hopes, that he might expedite a Senate trial, were misplaced-- was telling his fellow Repubs that if there was going to be a trial, it would not start before Tuesday, the 19th (Monday is MLK birthday, which I think is a federal holiday?).

On the first part of your post-- that's what I initially assumed, since it only seems to make sense. However, today I heard a Constitutional expert, it sounded like, saying that the House could impeach a Pres. even after he's out of office. But think about it-- that would mean that Dems could still impeach George W. Bush? And Republicans, someday, could impeach Obama? Is there a statute of limitations on impeachment? Maybe the Repubs would want to impeach James Buchanan, as well.

 

I posted somewhere earlier this morning, a summary of these rules and procedures and it does say the House needs to impeach while he is still in office, otherwise like you said, it would be a free-for-all.

 

The fact remains, she went hysterical with impeachment and 25th Amendment talk, spread absurd lies about Trump not being safe with nuclear codes... then didn't bother to show up on Monday.

 

They are on a hurry. Could Trump stay in institutional politics in some way after an impeachment?

If not, I guess this is the reason. Otherwise I don't see the political motivation of such an act. Childish vendetta aside.

It's a matter of several days and I think that investigations are in progress about sedition and all the rest.
They could wait.

This reminds me a bit Berlusconi.

At the end Trump and Berlusconi are similar: they are outsiders and so the political world don't like them.

Now the matter is in the hands of the Congress which has got all the right [and the power] to act according to the majority of the members.
Let's see what's going to happen.

 

Serious?

 

I don't think you understand the process... there wasn't a "showing up" on Monday; it was just a documental thing, the "presentation" of the article of impeachment, that is, it gets logged in by the House clerk. It's today, the vote for the resolution asking for the 25th, when there is a vote that is by presence, and tomorrow, there is the vote for the article of impeachment. Like I said, she'll be there. But on Monday there wasn't anything she needed to be there for.

This said, I have posted a whole thread berating her for the nuclear codes histrionics.

 

Rationalization. She had time to go on Sixty Minutes, she should have made time to go the "presentation" of the consequence of her hare-brained raving.

 

Not needed. The presentation is a small formality. Like I said, she will be there, presiding the actual vote. That's what matter. You are the one engaging in rationalization; you want to find fault so you're clinging to this. Me, I find fault in other ways; I've just criticized Pelosi again in another post I just published for another thread, but for something much more substantial than not being there for this small documental thingy.

 

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.