Now what? Here are some fun options- including charging Pelosi with extortion

Loading


 
Last night Donald Trump was impeached in an entirely partisan vote on two articles neither of which contained a crime. This morning millions of democrats awoke to learn, shockingly disappointed,  that Trump is still their President and likely will be until 2024.

Last night was touted as being very somber. Nancy Pelosi dressed in black for the occasion. democrats frequently invoked children, the deceased and “God” in the name of impeachment.

Here Rashida Tlaib, appropriately somber.

The CNN and Washington Post staff held a somber impeachment vigil:


 
Pelosi had to try to keep a lid on the celebration in the House

For his part, Trump was completely nonplussed by the event, saying “It doesn’t really feel like we’re being impeached.”

It was interesting watching a split screen of the impeachment vote and Trump rally. There was no loss of enthusiasm during the only completely partisan impeachment in history.



democrats have repeatedly accused Trump of wanting to be a dictator yet they seem to believe they have not a speaker, but a queen. She is making demands of the Senate as a condition of delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate. For some reason she believes herself to be superior to both the President and the Senate.

Via Will Chamberlain

Image
 
This is called Irony 101.

After the railroading of the House GOP this strikes me as kind of audacious. Withholding the articles from the Senate may seem like a slick political move, but it could also lead to some untoward consequences.

For instance, Mitch McConnell could appeal to the Judiciary to dismiss the entire impeachment proceedings. There are even more entertaining options.

Pelosi could be held in Contempt of Congress.

Pelosi could be charged with Obstruction of Congress.

Best of all, the argument could be made that Pelosi is attempting to extort the GOP Senate to get something of value to her. That means charges of extortion and abuse of power.

This whole thing is a loser for democrats but there is motivation behind it. The farce is highly likely to cost democrats the House and it is also highly likely Trump will be reelected, now even more likely.

Look for a couple of things. There will unending caterwauling from democrats when it’s time to choose the next SCOTUS judge. They’ll be screaming that an impeached President should not be able to choose a SCOTUS judge, at which the GOP should scoff.

Also look now for the effort to preemptively impeach AG Bill Barr and US Attorney John Durham as colluding with an impeached President.

That won’t work either but do be observant. Any delay in delivering the articles will put the lie to the solemnity by democrats in protecting the Constitution -which everyone with half a brain knows already.

democrats have pretty much guaranteed Trump’s reelection with this nonsense and for that we can thank them. He will use impeachment as a cudgel on DNC and deservedly so.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Lets build a special prison for politicians Pelosi both the Clinton’s and Obama are their prize inmates yeah Al Gore to he can have his cell that uses all that Hot Air

Nancy Pelosi is absolutely in violation of the Constitution. Articles of Impeachment have been drawn up and voted on and her Constitutional duty is to send those articles, along with her list of managers, to the Senate for disposition. She has failed to do that, all on the advise of Harvard Law School professor, Lawrence Tribe.

Pelosi has no control over the Senate. She also has no authority to tell the Senate how to conduct their business. Just as the Senate has no authority to tell the House how to conduct its business.

So while Pelosi loves to blather on about “defending” the Constitution, she now stands in direct violation of that document.

Now what? Here are some fun options- including charging Pelosi with extortion

Alternately, you can piss on the grave John Dingell.

How long is it going to take you to figure out what Donald Trump is? How far down does he have to pull his followers before they notice where he’s taking them?

@Greg: How much winning can you cry about? After impeaching him they will pass a trade deal crafted by him bwahahaaaaaaawheeeeze hahaha
Dingell…let the dead bury the dead.

@Greg:

Alternately, you can piss on the grave John Dingell.

Quid pro quo. The Democrats have continued to piss on the graves of Adams, Madison and Hamilton.

How long is it going to take you to figure out what Donald Trump is? How far down does he have to pull his followers before they notice where he’s taking them?

How long is it going to take you to figure out that the Democrats are now nothing more than dictator wanna-bes? How far down do they have to pull you?

Oh, well, expecting any answers from you is like tilting at windmills.

@DrJohn: The Democrat party

You know, a mule with a spinning wheel is a little like a House Speaker with articles of impeachment. No one knows how she got them, and danged if she knows how to use them.

The drunken leader of the party of personal destruction risks turning this sham into an unconstitutional one by refusing to present the articles to the Senate. The Congress can not constitutionally impugn someone’s character with legislation as they’ve done without granting redress. In failing to pass the articles to the Senate, the articles become an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
If Trump wants a trial, he can file a Writ of Mandamus to force the swamp mistress’ hand.

OK Friends. I shared the article above on my FB page. I was then told by a friend, an attorney who I respect and who is a conservative, that according to the Constitution , Article 1 of the Constitution specifically pertains to impeachment.. Each chamber makes their own rules as to how to handle impeachment process. So she (Pelosi) can basically hold the articles for as long as she wishes. The articles would become null and void if carried past this term of congress …. past 2020 election. Clause Six grants to the Senate the sole power to try impeachments and spells out the basic procedures for impeachment trials. The Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine what constitutes an adequate impeachment trial.. So, as I understand it, Nancy can sit on her papers / articles until the election, but it would not impede the Senate from moving forth.

@retire05:

true! when whore dog billy was impeached the speaker of the house walked the the articals of impeachment to the Senate chambers to be formally received by the Senate leader. recall, it was on all the tv channels at the time

This whole Impeach Trump he has not commited one Impeachible offence however Obama commited plenty of offences that would have called for his Impeachment but the Dirty Democrats choose to ignore the whole this Its the Democrats who should be removed and jailed

It’s pretty close to open warfare in DC, folks.

Lawyers close to President Donald Trump are exploring whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to temporarily withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate could mean that the president hasn’t actually been impeached.

The White House legal theory, according to a person familiar with the legal review, is that if Trump has been officially impeached, the U.S. Senate should already have jurisdiction. Backers of the theory would argue that the clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments” indicates that the impeachment isn’t formalized until the House reported the charges to the upper chamber.

Speaking Thursday in the Oval Office, Trump said it was “unconstitutional” for Pelosi not to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-19/trump-lawyers-ask-if-pelosi-delay-means-trump-not-yet-impeached

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course the entire House “impeach” show started without the requisite vote by the entire House.
Then rules were made up as they went along.
The Dems’ opposition were denied equal rights.
And now Dems are demanding the Senate give them a QUID PRO QUO before they will turn over the impeachment articles!!!

Democratic House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn told CNN, if it were up to him, he would withhold articles of impeachment from the Senate indefinitely. Clyburn said he would only send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for if Democrat’s were promised a “fair” trial. By “fair trial,” Clyburn means allowing new witnesses and deliberation to take place in the Senate. But, deliberations and witness testimony is a job meant for the House of Representatives. Clearly, Rep. Adam Schiff and House Democrats bungled their hearings and concluded with extremely weak articles of impeachment(Snip) Now, they want more witnesses called because they didn’t do their job well their first time.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/19/keep-those-articles-here-top-dem-demands-quid-pro-quo-before-sending-impeachment-senate/

And then there is this possible solution that I C&P’d From a friend : “Impeachment is now officially out of the hands of the House and now sole jurisdiction of the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. The Senate can immediately move to a verdict vote and declare Trump acquitted and the articles null and void without a single witness being called. The senate should put forth the following resolution :
“Regarding Article I : It is not an abuse of power for the President to request cooperation of another country to investigate a criminal action.
Regarding Article II: It is not contempt of Congress to exercise due process and request a review of a matter by the Supreme Court.
There being no criminal accusations present, President Trump is cleared of any wrong doing. “

A Senate impeachment trial without the testimony of those having first-hand knowledge of the facts who defied subpoenas at the President’s command would be a affirmation of his “right” to misuse his power of office and to obstruct Congress. That’s an easy case to make.

Chuck Schumer can and will force a floor vote on the matter of witnesses. Do the 33 republican Senators defending their seats this coming November really want to go there to protect Trump’s posterior?

It looks like Trump’s unified evangelical base is fracturing already. Fundamental principles are suddenly being remembered. If only 5 percent fail to turn out for him, he’s done. They wouldn’t even have to switch their vote to a Democratic Party candidate.

McConnell had better think carefully.

Greg: Have you read Article 1 of the Constitution? I had not until today when a retired attorney friend nicely told me I was ignorant of the Constitution and to not buy into Chuckie Cheese and Nervous Nancy’s interpretation. As I stated above “Impeachment is now officially out of the hands of the House and now sole jurisdiction of the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. The Senate can immediately move to a verdict vote and declare Trump acquitted and the articles null and void without a single witness being called. ” They do not need the ceremony handing over the Articles. The House is D.O.N.E. Chuckie Cheese has no jurisdiction. He is staging Political theater for the benefit of the ignorant. Greg, I usually skip past your immature rants and proselytizing as they consistently read as a person with a troubled mind. As a RN, I feel obligated to suggest to you to get psychiatric help. There are programs ( thanks to President Trump) that can assist you with costs . Please reach out to your local Mental Health Facility.

Greg still has obozo’s boyhood in his mouth.

@Abbi: I have heard it both ways the must be given or they need not be. You are correct the House is done The accusations made the vote taken. Cuckie Chuckie is a Senator it now lies in his chamber but like republicans in the House, democrats in the Senate are a minority party and will need to suck it up and accept what the majority party decides on the handling, I’m for a quick dismissal and get them back to work.
You can never wipe out or nullify an impeachment history will show Trump the first President to be re-elected after impeachment.

The Democrats were never ones to allow the U.S. Constitution to get in their way of creating the North American(SOVIET)Union why else do they want Open Borders Bridges instead of walls and a disarmed American Public their all in cahoots with the UN and CFR the Democrats are all traitors

@Abbi, #17:

As I stated above “Impeachment is now officially out of the hands of the House and now sole jurisdiction of the Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. The Senate can immediately move to a verdict vote and declare Trump acquitted and the articles null and void without a single witness being called. ”

Then they should hop to it, get on with their parody of patriotism with the whole world watching.

Alternately, they could call in the witnesses that Trump kept from telling what they know, and provide the fair and impartial trial and rendering of justice that they’re all going to swear an oath before God to conduct. If Trump is innocent, he would be vindicated.

Obviously they don’t really believe that he is.

@Greg: It isnt the Senates job to create the case they are suppose to try, you just dont or wont get it.
It was the Houses job to make the case. if the idiots couldnt wait for a judge to enforce the subpoenas too bad so sad.
They have tons of opinion news articles as evidence hearsay rumor gossip thats all Schift Pants gathered, deal with it.
Ignorant democrat representatives should have kicked the can back to the judiciary committee and told them to do their jobs.

@Greg:

If Trump is innocent, he would be vindicated.

He already is, the charade that he’s not being the House the media’s version of “keeping our dwindling voters”…

It’s probably a good time to take the Democrats balls out of your mouth and start to think yourself…

@Nathan Blue: He was not vindicated he was totally EXONERATED
No bribery, no Quid Pro Quo Those things are not in the articles. 😉

@Greg: A Senate impeachment trial without the testimony of those having first-hand knowledge of the facts …..

Let me fix that for you, Greg:
A House impeachment investigation without the testimony of ANY of those having first-hand knowledge of the facts should never have brought articles of impeachment.

@Greg:Greg,
I realize you don’t pay much attention to the law but one reminder-the accused does not have to prove their innocence in this country. We operate under English Common Law where you are innocent until proven guilty. Go play in France or Mexico under Napoleonic code and you’ll be much happier. Unfortunately for you, Donald Trump IS the President of this country!

Articles not passed to the Senate…so no impeachment, as of now.

@Nathan Blue:

Articles not passed to the Senate…so no impeachment, as of now.

Incorrect. Trump has been impeached.

Pre-existing House rules Chapter 27, Section 8 state:

:

“The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment.”

The Constitution says the House

“shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

I do understand that Noel Feldman gave an opinion that impeachment has not yet occurred and that Trump got all giddy about it and promoted it as gospel but Feldman’s opinion has been shot down by many and Trump is a serial pathological liar.

Trump has indeed been impeached.

@Ronald J. Ward: Yup but he is still the President not formally charged until the Senate gets the articles.

@kitt:

@Ronald J. Ward: Yup but he is still the President not formally charged until the Senate gets the articles.

Incorrect Kitt. Impeachment by definition is “a charge of misconduct made against the holder of a public office.

By the House rules previously established “The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment.”

By the constitution “the House shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

Trump has been both impeached and charged on 2 accounts.

@Ronald J. Ward: Well it seems the evidence for the phoney charges isnt good enough to present to the court. The Media can try to be the court but that isnt how this works, thats not how any of this works.
Did you ever figure our how it was me not you that is confused?
I can point my finger at you and say prove your mother ever loved you.I say your mom never loved you.
Its empty even if I get 700 people to also say it, does it make it true?
its simply the definition of impeachment: an accusation.

@kitt:

Well it seems the evidence for the phoney charges isnt good enough to present to the court.

I’m and many are reasonably sure that isn’t the motive of Pelosi not sending it to the senate which wasn’t the argument at all. Trump is still impeached and has been charged.

The Media can try to be the court but that isnt how this works, thats not how any of this works.

I seriously have no idea what media, if any, that you get your info from. I’m not aware of any trying to be the court. But he’s still been charged.

Did you ever figure our how it was me not you that is confused?

I really try not to analyze the culprit of your confusion.

I can point my finger at you and say prove your mother ever loved you.I say your mom never loved you.

If that helps you deal with your issues, maybe relieve some anxieties you suffer from, by all means do so.

Its empty even if I get 700 people to also say it, does it make it true?

Is that akin to something like “how many electricians does it take to screw in a light bulb” jokes? By the way, Trump is still impeached and has been charged.

its simply the definition of impeachment: an accusation.

Yes! Finally an agreement. An accusation can be construed as a charge.

@Ronald J. Ward: I’m and many are reasonably sure that isn’t the motive of Pelosi not sending it to the senate which wasn’t the argument at all. Trump is still impeached and has been charged.
What argument ?
I have posted several times he has been accused. It has been recorded in the congressional record.
You will have to pardon my analogy I was trying to come up with an accusation as ridiculous and empty of meaning as the House.
Nice to know you have as much evidence of my confusion as Nancy has for her accusations.They will go down in history as political retards.

@kitt:
Okay, what the hell ever! Oh, wait, you asked “what argument?”

Your intrusion pertains to my argument with Nathan’s disinformation that Trump hasn’t been impeached. He has.

@Ronald J. Ward: Your answer to me

I’m and many are reasonably sure that isn’t the motive of Pelosi not sending it to the senate which wasn’t the argument at all. Trump is still impeached and has been charged.

So is Nancy guilty of obstruction of congress? After all this isnt the first retarded partisan pile of crap impeachment accusations she has set before the House to vote on.
Go to #19 and see what I posted 9 days ago, it took 5 days for your reply to Nathan. The liberal Professor that said he wasnt impeached, are they one of the austere 700 constitution scholars? No, even better, 7 days ago · Noah Feldman, Democrat impeachment witness, says Trump not impeached until articles sent to Senate – Washington Times. Noah R. Feldman, a witness called by Democrats in the impeachment inquiry! One of the non witnesses Nadler picked.
Still laughing at you, and the entire Democrat HOR.

So is Nancy guilty of obstruction of congress?

No and that’s a rather ridiculous question.

After all this isnt the first retarded partisan pile of crap impeachment accusations she has set before the House to vote on.

There were 2 articles of impeachment.

Go to #19 and see what I posted 9 days ago, it took 5 days for your reply to Nathan.

I assume you’re referring to a different page? As for a time line, I don’t monitor FA on some regular basis. And sometimes you, Nathan, Retire et al get so distracting and nonsensical, can’t even keep up with your own spin (which I realize is the objective) that I don’t even bother.

The liberal Professor that said he wasnt impeached, are they one of the austere 700 constitution scholars? No, even better, 7 days ago · Noah Feldman, Democrat impeachment witness, says Trump not impeached until articles sent to Senate – Washington Times. Noah R. Feldman, a witness called by Democrats in the impeachment inquiry!

Perhaps if you brushed up on the English language it wouldn’t be so difficult to interpret. Or better yet, maybe respond earlier in the day before that Jim Beam bottle empties?

1 liberal Professor, Noah Feldman, opined that the impeachment wasn’t complete until it is sent to the senate. I don’t know if he was 1 of the 700 bipartisan scholars that penned a letter stating their opinions that Trump had committed impeachment crimes. Trump, Fox News, Breitbart, etc picked up on Feldman’s opinion and promoted it as some news-breaking game changer that Trump wasn’t impeached. Many others disputed Feldman based on the language of House rules as well as the Constitution itself.

So this is another example of Trump, Nathon, you and the right ring Trump worshipers (or Democrat hater) promoting a lie (or to be generous, something unproven and argumentatively flawed), repeating it over and over regardless of merit in order to make it be true. Donald J. Trump has been impeached.

One of the non witnesses Nadler picked.
Still laughing at you, and the entire Democrat HOR.

Looks like you’re too far into that Jim Beam.

Donald J. Trump has been impeached.

@Ronald J. Ward: You obviously did not watch the investigative hearings of the democrats they were televised.
There were 3 democrat constitutional scholars called as witnesses 1 for the defense and 2 for the prosecution, Professor Feldmen was one of the professors called By Nadler to testify before Congress. They were all presented the evidence, transcripts of hearsay, and he testified that Trump had committed impeachable offenses.Seems we have a difference of opinion with the Constitutional Scholar, but if he is correct and there is no impeachment unless the SOTH forwards her articles and managers, history will never show DJT as impeached.
You are so poorly informed as not to know there were other impeachment votes put on the floor of the HOR before this. Maybe you shouldnt comment on political blogs if you are so ignorant of events.There were 3 other times impeachments failed for our current President.
Still laughing at you.
Cant even scroll up to look at a comment in this thread.
When losing at a point becomes the grammar police a tired tactic of low intellect trolls.

@kitt:

@Ronald J. Ward: You obviously did not watch the investigative hearings of the democrats they were televised.

Again Kitt, and I’m typing extra slow in hopes you keep up, you are straying and continue to veer off of the only argument I’ve made. DONALD TRUMP HAS BEEN IMPEACHED!

@Nathan Blue: stated in comment # 28 “Articles not passed to the Senate…so no impeachment, as of now.”

I’ve laid out a case based on House rules and Constitutional language that he is wrong while identifying how the Dem haters will latch on to anything that glitters to sell their snake oil.

My comment was directed at Nathan, not you. You responded that “

@Ronald J. Ward: Yup but he is still the President not formally charged until the Senate gets the articles.

which I also soundly debunked.

You’ve since responded with off-topic nonsense as (see # 32) “evidence for the phoney charges isnt good enough to present to the court”, that the media was trying to be the court, something about my mother not loving me,and that the an impeachment was not an accusation (or, something). You then came back with more distractions in your #34 comment which I clearly explained in # 35 that

Your intrusion pertains to my argument with Nathan’s disinformation that Trump hasn’t been impeached. He has.

You then came back @kitt: in comment # 36 with an incoherent word salad diatribe asking if Nancy was guilty of obstruction of congress, something about a first retarded partisan pile of crap impeachment accusations, something about your # 19 comment on some unknown thread, that I took 5 days to respond to Nathan on some page and to something you failed to specify, back to trying to give some credence to Feldman’s argument in which you failed spectacularly to something about an unnamed Nadler witness to something about you laughing at me, all of which I reminded you again that Trump was still impeached.

@kitt: Comment # 38

You obviously did not watch the investigative hearings of the democrats they were televised.

Me watching or not watching the hearings does not change the House or Constitutional language which renders Trump impeached.

There were 3 democrat constitutional scholars called as witnesses 1 for the defense and 2 for the prosecution, Professor Feldmen was one of the professors called By Nadler to testify before Congress. They were all presented the evidence, transcripts of hearsay, and he testified that Trump had committed impeachable offenses..

We are not arguing the merits of the witnesses. There is no need for that as there is no way we will sway each other. What I’m talking about is that the House vote impeached Trump. HE HAS BEEN IMPEACHED.

Seems we have a difference of opinion with the Constitutional Scholar, but if he is correct and there is no impeachment unless the SOTH forwards her articles and managers, history will never show DJT as impeached

Okay, I can agree with that. But the key word there is IF. If he is correct, there is no impeachment. But there has been no credible arguments indicating he is correct while there has been the exposure of actual House rules and the constitutional language that says he’s incorrect. Feldman’s comments have been pretty much a nothing burger and has been largely dismissed because it doesn’t hold water. It has been a big seller of the Trump admin because it’s a feel-good thing for Trump.

Remember, Trump is a profound liar and has a long list of promoting lies and conspiracy theories. Trump followers blindly accept whatever he sells. That does not mean it is true and you haven’t presented a single credible argument other than 1 man expressed an opinion of if Trump has been impeached.

You are so poorly informed as not to know there were other impeachment votes put on the floor of the HOR before this. Maybe you shouldnt comment on political blogs if you are so ignorant of events.There were 3 other times impeachments failed for our current President.

Please list these other 3 articles of impeachment you speak of. It doesn’t matter how many times a given congressperson sponsors or pushes for impeachment. What matters is if articles of impeachment have been adopted and voted on by the entire House.

Still laughing at you.

That doesn’t change the fact that Trump has been impeached.

Cant even scroll up to look at a comment in this thread.

Now that one made me laugh, not with you by the way.

When losing at a point becomes the grammar police a tired tactic of low intellect trolls.

I don’t give a rat’s ass about your grammar but it’s another thing when you’re profoundly incoherent.