December 19, 2019
Frankly, I'd say that if she doesn't send this to the Senate, she should be impeached! Won't happen, of course, since her party has the majority in the House. But talk about having delusions of grandeur! Or is it Botox poisoning?Talk about your quid pro quos. After ramrodding through the tissue-thin impeachment articles in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is now threatening to withhold the Democrats' case unless she can dictate the terms of the Senate trial. The Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, hasn't weighed in on Pelosi's plan to take over his domain.
Pelosi, Congressman Adam Schiff, and Senator Chris Van Hollen have now all floated the idea of freezing the House vote where it is and not sending the impeachment articles to the U.S. Senate, where President Trump would undoubtedly go down in history as being vindicated.
Pelosi said, "So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us" and vowed to withhold naming the House Managers (the prosecutors) of the impeachment case until McConnell gives her the kind of "fair trial" that she demands:
The prevent-defense by the Democrats would, in the words of Fox News host Laura Ingraham, allow Pelosi to "say 'we've impeached the president' [but not] let him say he was acquitted."
Ingraham asked former Whitewater independent counsel Chris Ray about such a move. He shut it down: "Even as Speaker of the House, she doesn't get to tell the United States Senate what to do, period."
Constitutional law expert John Eastman was stunned that Pelosi would break with yet another precedent:
There's certainly no precedent for withholding articles of impeachment. When the House passes a resolution or a bill it necessarily must go to the Senate for consideration. This is not a single House resolution, this is something that requires the participation of both houses of Congress. Again, completely uncharted territory. But if she doesn't send them over there, it just proves that ... this is a sham...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
01:20 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.
Obama's statement that "If Congress won't act then I will" was not about presidential overreach, it was about a power grab by the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Bill H at December 19, 2019 06:21 PM (vMiSr)
I just wish he'd call a whole dictionary-load of witnesses! I still want to hear from that "whistleblower" and his coach, Schiff! Mitch could call enough Democrat troublemakers in to ensure that we could have impeachments going on until the end of Trump's second term -- at the very least -- if the donkeys love impeachment so much.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at December 19, 2019 07:00 PM (hC3Do)
1.The Senate can pass a resolution censuring Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler.
2.The Senate can run their own "mock trial". While it would not be technically binding, it would have the effect of bringing in the people involved and putting them under oath. Technically it would be a Senate investigation, but make it clear that it's the trial Pelosi wouldn't run.
And always it should be pointed out Trump wanted a Senate trial to prove his innocence, to give him his day in court as any American has a right to expect. Point out that now Trump has been accused without speedy trial - the hallmark of the American judicial system.
They all need to say that when Bat Granny tries pulling this stunt.
Frankly, I think this would backfire on Pelosi in a huge way.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at December 20, 2019 07:39 AM (ScrwI)
37 queries taking 0.3463 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
