What if, after the House votes for impeachment,

[pnwmom]

Nancy announces that they won't be sending the case to the Senate, at least for now, because Mitch McConnell has already announced that he'll be running the trial in full coordination with the White House -- i.e., the defendant.

Why subject the House's thoughtful case to a joke of a trial?

I'm wondering what the lawyers here think about this idea. If the House impeaches him, can we stop there? And just keep holding new hearings as things come up? Is there any value to going through with a sham trial in the Senate?


ON UPDATE:

Link to tweet

?fbclid=IwAR3G1kbShMTzgnQ1dAwdlNMTqwZJYmELc-VjkbyrSeHoE5-Hib4nTg2gkUA

Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw

Is it a “trial” if the defendant runs the proceedings? What about the ancient principle that nobody can be the judge of his own case?

[Timewas]

1. When this session

Ends if impeachment has not been approved and sent to the senate it expires and would need to be renewed in next session...(I think this is how it goes)

[scheming daemons]

4. "Session" lasts until the 116th congress ends (Jan 3, 2021) for these purposes.

At least I heard that somewhere.

[NYC Liberal]

13. Impeachment resolutions don't expire with adjournment.

Clinton was impeached by the House in December 1998 and tried by a new Senate in January 1999.

[Timewas]

33. Not sure

If the impeachment was voted out of the house first and not sent to senate or if sent and then delayed by the senate til next session????....I think I read somewhere that the trial would be next year anyway which would put it into the next session...

I think they should go ahead and impeach him now and have the trial, then when he is not found guilty and removed impeach him again so he can be the only pres impeached twice..

[Hoyt]

2. I like this idea, the Senate would be a sham. Of course, GOPers will say House Impeachment

was a sham. Don’t have an answer to avoid it. Just hope enough voters wise up.

[BigmanPigman]

3. Many people have had this opinuon.

Today, I think it was on Hardball, Charlie Sykes said he thinks they should hold onto it for now. It is unlikely but it does make sense to me at this time.

[leftieNanner]

15. This is what John Dean

has suggested. Let the Turd Maggot stew for a while!

[BigmanPigman]

23. I love seeing him squirm.

Suuuuuuure he thinks this will help him...it'll help him go crazier faster!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I like that idea.

Let it hang over his head while they keep investigating. I'd love to see him gone ASAP, but if the trial in the Senate will be a sham proceeding on account of McConnell he won't be convicted anyhow. So let him stay impeached without a final resolution for awhile. It will drive him nuts. Or more nuts than he already is.

[rso]

6. Impeachment

This Congress has another year to go, so I’m fairly certain that the impeachment articles could be sent over anytime in 2020.

[RockRaven]

7. This is sort of interesting... it would drive Trump NUTS to be impeached w/o the possibility

of being acquitted and thereby "winning." Of course, OTOH, he would raise hell about Pelosi/Dems being afraid or dishonest.

I do not have a good sense of how that would play in Senate primaries/generals. But that is the critical issue in all of this (aside from POTUS 2020 outcome of course).

In light of the stories about Romney whipping impeachment conviction votes (and his potential role in the White Horse prophecy) I wonder what sort of fracas this could cause amongst GrOPer Senators... "Ditch Mitch so we can ditch Trump"? -- sounds like an obvious no-go, but it's interesting to consider the turmoil it could cause anyway.

[rso]

8. Impeachment

This particular Congress has another year to go, so I’m almost certain that the articles could be sent to the Senate any time in 2020.

[Wounded Bear]

9. The only way to do that is to delay the floor vote...

and I don't think they want to do that. But once the floor vote is done, the Constitution is pretty explicit: The Senate has sole power to try the impeachment.

I think they keeping moving forward and play up what McConnell said in the press.

Oh, and there is no reason whatsoever to stop any investigations.

[pnwmom]

10. Right -- the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. But can the House

decide not to send the articles to the Senate for trial, at least for now, since McConnell has already announced there won't be a fair trial?

[leftieNanner]

16. As I noted above

John Dean has suggested that the House hold the impeachment and not turn it over to the Senate.

He does know a little bit about the impeachment process after all.

[pnwmom]

19. Thanks! n/t

[VarryOn]

11. Impeach him, send it to the Senate...

Let them acquit, and let’s move on. We have a +%! election to win.

The Senate is not going to convict so there’s no need in dreaming up schemes whereby they will. Not going to happen. A sad truth.

[pnwmom]

12. But why give them the chance to say he was acquitted? If we don't send it to the Senate,

because they've promised a trial in "full coordination with the White House," he won't be able to say he was acquitted.

[VarryOn]

14. I'd be for that if...

It doesn’t consume our energies and the public’s attention.

My whole aim is to get focused on November. I’m afraid we are going to get sucked into jousting at windmills for months, losing precious time that could be used making our case for a Democratic president.

[pnwmom]

17. If this is constitutional, I don't think it would take much time at all.

Take the impeachment vote and then announce that, since McConnell has announced that he will coordinate the trial with the defendant, there is no reason to send the articles to the Senate.

[VarryOn]

21. I get what you're suggesting...

But have no idea if that can be done. Whatever the next step is, it just needs to be quick. I’ve been traveling lots over the last 6 or so weeks. Lots of hours in airports and on planes. I’m concerned at the apparent lack of attention being given to our country’s sad shape. Granted, it could be the people I’m around, but I’m concerned, nonetheless.

I’m hoping it’s just the time of year too...people are more focused on the holidays. Maybe after Jan 1 things will change.

[jxla]

37. After the Senate votes to acquit

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2019, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

Your post #11 reminded me that MoveOn.org originated in 1998, after the group's founders began a petition urging the Republican-controlled Congress to "censure President Clinton and move on"

Is there any reason why the House couldn't vote to censure Trump after the Senate fails to remove him?

[evertonfc]

18. to be honest

I dont know that it matters politically. We have about 8 states in play now and 8 after the Senate fails to convict. We have a President that hasn't expanded his base. We turn out- we win. I think we will turn out.

[C_U_L8R]

20. Or wait for the Supreme Court to resolve some cases.

Flaunted subpoenas. Hidden evidence. Tax and emolument fraud. There's a lot out there that we don't know the full details about. I'd slow walk this and make sure every stone is turned.

[Beartracks]

22. Let the people decide! Elect a new Senate next year so THEY preside over the case.

It's not fair to do it now when the elections are so close. Right?

Well, that AND Mitch is Trump's lackey. The current Senate is not able to be partial.

========

[world wide wally]

24. This should be a no brainer.

McConnell has given us every reason not to trust any proceeding he oversees.

[OldRed2450]

25. Bookmarking

I want to know if anyone has the answer if this can be done.

[DonaldsRump]

26. If a delay in transmitting the approved Articles to the Senate is permissible

Why not take that approach and publicly announce that they are giving Trump two months (or whatever) to turn any additional evidence to consider that might be exculpatory.

That way, you can shame Trump into refusing, yet again, to turn over stuff, and build a huge PR campaign around the phrase "What are you trying to hide".

The House can then point out how reasonable they were and re-emphasize that Trump has no exculpatory evidence since he clearly did what was stated in the Articles.

Just a thought on a rainy but joyous Friday the 13th. I smiled all day today basking in what the HJC did!

[Maraya1969]

28. I think this is an excellent idea. And they can add charges when they get 45's

taxes and hopefully they might add something about his abuses of the emolument clause.

Plus I think it will make Trump very unhappy to have this hanging over his head.

The Senate, under MCConnell has already declared that the trial will be a farce. Why should they get the chance?

[ck4829]

31. And everyone else is embarrassed by Trump

[NotASurfer]

30. The Constitution isn't specific on process

One possibility is Moscow Mitch would try to proceed once the House vote is in, and argues it's the next step Constitutionally, so the formal communication from the House is not relevant. He's not playing on a level field so any means to kangaroo-court this in Dear Orange Leader's favor is fair game

[Wawannabe]

32. Tribe is special.

I like him. Wrote him an email with questions just before 2016 election and he actually answered me. He was interviewed in an article and his email given too. Floored I was! Nice reply with thoughtful answers to my questions. I am ever grateful to him. He is wicked smart and learned.

[RandySF]

34. I want Collins, Gardner and McSally on the record.

[LiberalLovinLug]

35. At the very least, hold off on handing it to the Senate until fair rules are established

So that the prosecution has enough time to present its case properly. And that it be public as well

[beachbumbob]

38. An interesting idea. Any mechanism that forces a house passed bill or articles that sends it to the

Senate I wonder?

Leave hang in limbo for a while

[Stargazer09]

39. Spread it out

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2019, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Have the House vote on those two articles. Don’t send them to the Senate right away.

Immediately after the holidays, start working on more Articles of Impeachment. Bribery, emoluments, whatever. He’s committed so many impeachable offenses that Congress can keep going all year long.

The more votes to impeach, the better. Let’s drive Donnie nuts.

[kentuck]

40. Nancy would have good reason not to send it over if she so chose...

Mitch has been very upfront about it. After all, Tom Daschle did it during Clinton impeachment. (I don't remember Tom Daschle promising the whole Party was behind him?)