Democrats follow Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe off the impeachment cliff
In what reality does refusing to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate as a pressure tactic make any sense?
Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe has a somewhat storied history, long considered a leading liberal legal light, someone who was talked about in the past as a possible Supreme Court nominee.
Tribe’s scholarly accomplishments always mixed with pugilistic politics. He was involved in developing what now is known as “Borking”:
What is clear, though, is that more than anyone else, he is the intellectual architect of the more expansive and aggressive role the Senate is now taking in reviewing President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominations, a role that culminated last month in the rejection of Judge Robert H. Bork of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
It was, moreover, Mr. Tribe who helped prepare the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Bork’s confirmation hearings and who, in the carefully choreographed parade of witnesses, served as the keynote speaker for the opposition.
Tribe has fallen off a cliff in the age of Donald Trump.
Tribe frequently provides the legal cover for the Resistance. Soon after Trump’s election win, Tribe volunteered to represent so-called Unfaithful Electors as part of a Resistance effort to get Electoral College Electors not to follow their respective state votes:
As has happened with many prominent people who just couldn’t handle Trump’s win, Tribe chose Twitter followers and retweets for his reputation.
Tribe was an early adopter of impeaching Trump, even before Trump took office, and his Twitter feed went off the sanity rails, as this June 2017 article by Gene Healy summarized, Laurence Tribe’s Impeachment Hysteria:
Impeachment “Should Begin On Inauguration Day,” Tribe declared in December; by January 28, he had concluded that Trump “must be impeached for abusing his power and shredding the Constitution more monstrously than any other president in American history” — pretty impressive for a man entering the second week of his presidency.
In the first months of Trump’s tenure, Tribe floated everything from violations of the Emoluments Clause to the “cruel brand of bigotry” that supposedly motivates the travel ban to a State Department blogpost touting the “winter White House” at Mar-a-Lago, even suggesting that the president could be defenestrated on the basis of a single tweet: his March 4 claim that Obama had his “wires tapped” in Trump Tower. When law professor Johnathan Turley laughed off the idea on Morning Joe, back in March, Tribe had a mini-conniption on Twitter: “Using power of WH to falsely accuse [Obama of an] impeachable felony does qualify as an impeachable offense whether via tweet or not,” he huffed….
Tribe’s feed has become a “vector of misinformation and conspiracy theories on Twitter,” as Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan puts it. The distinguished professor of constitutional law has become a sucker for crackpot theories about the Trump-Russia connection, and a fan of those who spread them, such as “the incomparable Louise Mensch.” “Incomparable” is right. Mensch, the “paranoid bard of the age of Trump,” claims, among other things, that Vladimir Putin had Andrew Breitbart assassinated, and that “the Marshal of the Supreme Court” has notified President Trump of secret impeachment proceedings that are already underway.
Knowing what Tribe’s Twitter feeds embodies, I laughed when I saw him proposing that Nancy Pelosi hold the Articles of Impeachment hostage to exert pressure on Republicans in the Senate. It was delusional:
Vote for the Articles of Impeachment in the House, then hold them like a Sword of Damocles over Trump and McConnell until he agrees to abide by his oath and hold a fair trial in the Senate, not a Trumpian whitewash.
Why would it be the Sword of Damocles over the heads of Republican Senators? If anything, it would reveal Democrats, who insisted that we had such a national emergency that they couldn’t wait to gather all the evidence, to be just playing games. It was wishful thinking at best, a hoped-for outcome divorced from the reality that Republican Senators couldn’t care less if the Articles of Impeachment never were sent over for trial.
Surely Democrat leadership would not follow such delusional analysis. Surely?
Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to commit Wednesday to delivering articles of impeachment to the Senate, citing concerns about an unfair trial on removing President Donald Trump from office….
[Steny] Hoyer said Democratic colleagues have approached him in recent days, citing an op-ed by constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe in which he calls on Democrats to delay sending impeachment articles to the Senate until McConnell agrees to run a fairer process.
“Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a meaningful verdict of acquittal,” Tribe wrote. Notably, House Judiciary Committee Democrats huddled with Tribe earlier this month as they practiced behind closed doors for their series of impeachment hearings.
Okay, Democrats were considering it, but they wouldn’t really do it, right?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated Thursday that she would delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, seeking more clarity on the rules for President Trump’s trial and potentially pushing the proceedings well into the new year.
Mrs. Pelosi’s comments drew condemnation from Republican lawmakers and President Trump, but the California Democrat said that she couldn’t select impeachment managers and advance the matter without more details about the Senate’s plans for a trial, which she has said should be conducted in a manner that she considers fair.
“When we see the process that is set forth in the Senate, then we’ll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward and who we will choose,” Mrs. Pelosi said shortly before the House adjourned for the rest of the year.
Pelosi appears to be losing it.
The delay has turned into a debacle, giving Trump and Mitch McConnell the opportunity to mock not just Pelosi, but the whole impeachment enterprise.
And Mitch McConnell is hardly intimidated:
“I’m not sure what leverage there is from refraining from sending us something we do not want.”
Trump supporters are energized. Democrats are wondering what they got themselves into.
Ted Cruz tweeted the perfect analogy for Pelosi’s strategy:
Actual footage of Pelosi’s impeachment strategy. https://t.co/Y8YSHortcv
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) December 19, 2019
If the polls are any indication, following Laurence Tribe’s advice is leading Democrats off a cliff in which they don’t get Trump removed, Trump gets reelected, and Democrats lose the House.
[Featured Image: MSNBC YouTube]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Any chance Pelosi is expecting to flip the Senate to Democrat with the 2020 elections?
Then January 2021, the day after Trump is sworn in dust off the Impeachment and remove Trump from office?
Does the Impeachment Pelosi has shelved have an expiration date?
Democrats would need 2/3 of the Senate to convict, not a mere majority.
True, but with a simple majority they could make CJ Roberts sit up there and grant dignity to the kangarooey-est kangaroo court ever shown on national television.
Two things about nancy
1.She’s not the dumbest person on the planet, but she better hope that person doesn’t die.
2. Listening to her latest attempt at public speaking it’s obvious why she never has a sign language interpreter.
I’d like to steal #1 if it’s OK?
About #2 – I’ve been praying specifically for her lying tongue to rot and fall out of her mouth. I don’t especially like praying that way, but there are Psalms to that effect and I’m tired of her habitual lying. Likewise Schiff, Nadler, Feinstein, Mad Max, Schumer, et al.
You can’t ateal what was stolen. Keep the thegt alive and pass it on.
I would think that, just like any other outstanding legislation when a congress ends, it expires when the new congress is sworn in.
Expiration date? Yes. Anything “left hanging” at the end of Congress’s term is dead. Bills from the 116th Congress that aren’t enacted don’t carry over to the 117th, so it seems likely that the impeachment, which takes the form of a Resolution, would be no different.
I believe that those articles become null and void if not acted upon by the end of the current Congress
New Congress, she would have to re vote it in the house first.
In theory, and it is theory because about half the country regards the law and Constitution to be totally malleable in service to the Left; I believe that all bills including Resolutions of Impeachment die when the Session of the Congress expires. That may change because of the malleability noted.
Subotai Bahadur
Yes, the expiration date is Nov. 2020 when the Demoncrats lose the house!
HAHAHAHA
Merlin01: Yes, the expiration date is Nov. 2020 when the Demoncrats lose the house!
Actually, the expiration date is January 3, 2021 — regardless of which party wins control of the House.
Tribe seems like far too many of the leftists of today. They have allowed their hatred, and yes, this is most especially true of Pelosi, to cloud all rational thought from their minds.
The left have been using the same basic play book for far too long, and we have learned their code words. Such as “fairer” in this case to mean that the left get their way regardless of the fact that their impeachment effort is a complete sham. It’s like “bipartisan” – which to the left means the Republicans compromise with the National Socialists, and give them their way.
Pelosi seems like her mental capacity has been compromised. She is having more and more difficulty forming words, recalling what she is talking about at times, and having her statements sound completely incoherent. At times her eyes have that “deer in the headlights” look. I doubt she is drunk, as some allege, I think she is showing signs of senility. Where this doesn’t happen all the time, but watch enough of her public utterings, and you can see there is a switch that goes faulty, not all that dissimilar to well documented issues Hillary had and why she was hidden for portions of time during the 16 campaign. While the two illnesses are not the same, it is obvious there are some disturbing mental lapses with both of these women.
I disagree about Pelosi. She is evil, but she is not stupid.
I think that San Fran Nan flatly did not want impeachment, preferring to do in Trump by a combination of passing costly spending to reward their Free Sh!t Army, endless investigations of Trump administration officials (designed to create the illusion of wrongdoing without actually having to prove it), and getting the media to fire up the Worst Economy Since The Great Depression lie. But for 3+ years impeachment mania has sucked the oxygen out of those efforts, and may end up making Trump unbeatable in 2020.
Pelosi bought into Tribe’s nonsensical hate based plan, now she’s going to pay the price. Impeachment is already a joke to the vast majority of the country, and Trump and McConnell don’t need to do anything at all, except to continue to laugh at and mock Pelosi every single day, for her cowardice and refusal to follow through.
Meanwhile, her far left base is going crazy at the thought that Nancy is just letting this die, and they’re freaking out because they were told that this Absolutely would Remove Trump. And here they are watching Trump publicly laughing at them every day – that’s the factor that Sooper Genius Lawrence Tribe never took into account.
Tom Servo: Impeachment is already a joke to the vast majority of the country
That is incorrect. Multiple polls show that the public is largely divided on the issue.
Read the tabs on the polls. Most are weighted, to heavily weighted, Democrat.
herm2416: Read the tabs on the polls. Most are weighted, to heavily weighted, Democrat.
That’s because slightly more people typically identify as Democrats than Republicans, measured by larger samples, so weighting allows greater precision with smaller samples. But even then, the claim that “Impeachment is already a joke to the vast majority of the country” is unsupported by the evidence, and simply false.
Are these the same polls that said clinton would win in a land slide???
starride: Are these the same polls that said clinton would win in a land slide???
National polls were within the margin of error of the final result of Clinton +2%.
Two things: when presidential polls are within the margin of error, it’s all about the electoral vote. A candidate not smart enough to manage the electoral vote is not smart to lead a nation. You can always try to win and not make it, but ignoring three states, any one of which gave Trump a win. Is just incompetence.
Petrushka: Two things: when presidential polls are within the margin of error, it’s all about the electoral vote.
Sure, but that wasn’t the claim.
How are things in your mother’s basement these days?
You are correct. Substitute “increasing” for “vast”.
Poor Comrade Zach – will it keep’s it’s job after the 2020 election of a second term for President Trump?
The paid commie cabal has done a dismal job, convincing no one.
The term “vast” was correct of course. Even the commie democraps know the whole thing is a joke.
Tribe has turned into an absolute mentally loon.
It’s with good reasons that he’s gotten the title of “Lost Tribe.”
Watching those afflicted with TDS can be quite entertaining
Mr. Branco, or any other awesome right-thinking political cartoonist, here is a suggestion …
Replace the Donkey in your cartoons with a Lemming.
It is because it best represents the recent evolution … er … the devolution … er … the slippery slope of the Democratic Party now.
A “fair process“ means fair to the person who is the subject of trial, i.e. President Trump. The Senate owes nothing to the House.
I’ve heard this recommended. Senate can change its rules by simple majority vote. Any impeachment, or pending impeachment, that is not transmitted from House to Senate within 24 hrs of the House vote is closed. Subject is exonerated on all charges. The same charges cannot be refiled with the Senate.
I would give them 5 working days ….
Tribe was on Hillary’s list for the Supreme Court. Probably screamed at the sky when she lost, like all the other SJW loons.
I very much doubt he was on Hillary’s list. He’s much too old. He might have been on Algore’s list.
Oh, he was on the list. Just wasn’t going to get a nomination.
Speaking of deranged #NeverTrumpers:
https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/12/20/some-democrats-apparently-think-that-the-impeachment-vote-means-that-trump-is-out-of-office/
At this point I’m leaning towards, the checks are working. If the House can’t get its act together enough to even send the articles over, then their entire impeachment silliness was just that, silliness, and the Senate has no need to waste it’s time on those buffoons.
William A. Jacobson: In what reality does refusing to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate as a pressure tactic make any sense?
1. To know the rules before selecting the House managers.
2. To make a public case for a full trial.
3. To set the timing, keeping the Republican Senate off balance.
1. What possible difference could that make to who gets selected as impeachment managers?
2. There is already going to be a full trial. It is guaranteed in that little document you love to hate: the Constitution. Unlike the Soviet-style investigation in the House, complete with secret hearing, secret witnesses, and illegal spying by Schiff.
3. What happened to the rock-solid case Democrats supposedly had? What happened to Russian stealing of the 2016 election? What happened to the supposed pressuring of Ukraine by Trump? No mention of any of that in the articles of impeachment! If Democrats were any more off-balance they would be upside-down.
Depends what you mean by “a full trial”. The constitution doesn’t define the term “try”, and the Supreme Court has said (Walter Nixon v US) that it’s not justiciable. So the senate could choose to have a very short trial, in which the prosecutors get an hour to make their case and then the senate votes to dismiss.
Milhouse: Depends what you mean by “a full trial”.
The usual definition, meaning the open presentation of evidence before the court (Senate).
Well, Walter Nixon didn’t get that, and the Supreme Court said “none of our business”.
Milhouse: Well, Walter Nixon didn’t get that, and the Supreme Court said “none of our business”.
Sure. But the question is whether it constituted a full trial as the term is normally construed.
The obvious response to this is:
1. Refusing to set the rules until the House articles are transmitted (but repeated talking points about how important it is to maintain the constitutional guarantees of presumed innocence, the right to confront your accuser in court and cross-examine, exclusion of hearsay, all rights that the accused did not receive under Democrat process, and all rights that ALL citizens should enjoy)
2. The longer the Dems blather, the higher Trumps poll numbers go, BUT we have to keep the pressure on so they don’t lie without being confronted.
3. By refusing to go any further (or speculate) until the articles are actually transmitted, it places this albatross firmly around Pelosi’s neck. “It has now been two weeks since the impeachment vote was taken and Nancy Pelosi still has not etc…”
4. Constant and repeated hammering of the point that the trial in the Senate is strictly the Senate’s territory, and the House has nothing to do with setting any rules or calling any witnesses. Zip. If they wanted a witness before, they could have asked for him, WAITED until the judicial system had dealt with their subpoena, and questioned him then (provided the Supremes went along with their stupid reasoning)
He DID say “reality”.
1. Pelosi excluded Republican participation in the House impeachment circus.
2. The House vote to impeach was 100% Democrat.
3. The House vote against impeachment was bipartisan.
4. Schumer chose to “negotiate” the rules by going direct to the media with protests and attacks instead of meeting with McConnell.
5. Schumer’s demands are for the continuation of the failed House investigations rather than going into the trial itself. House investigates. Senate judges.
6. Further, Pelosi was in too much of a hurry to wait for the SCOTUS to rule on POTUS’ executive privilege appeals on the witnesses Schumer wants to bring in. Once again ignoring separation of powers.
7. America gets it. It’s a circus and everyone except you communists wants it ended ASAP. It’s entirely unconstitutional.
Get a clue will you? On the other hand, being the resident communist tool becomes you.
I think you missed the point of the question.
The question is: why should the Senate care?
What power does Pelosi think she’s exerting over them by not naming house managers and not sending the paperwork over?
Recovering Lutheran: 1. What possible difference could that make to who gets selected as impeachment managers?
For instance, if witnesses to be called, selecting managers who have experience with questioning witnesses would be important.
Recovering Lutheran: 2. There is already going to be a full trial. It is guaranteed in that little document you love to hate: the Constitution. Unlike the Soviet-style investigation in the House, complete with secret hearing, secret witnesses, and illegal spying by Schiff.
The Constitution only says “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” The Senate can ignore the charges, dismiss the charges, or have a truncated trial without witnesses. Senate rules require some response, though.
Recovering Lutheran: 3. What happened to the rock-solid case Democrats supposedly had?
In plain sight.
georgfelis: the right to confront your accuser in court and cross-examine, exclusion of hearsay, all rights that the accused did not receive under Democrat process, and all rights that ALL citizens should enjoy
Those are trial rights, not rights accorded during, for instance, a grand jury investigation. Nor is this a criminal proceeding.
georgfelis: the House has nothing to do with setting any rules or calling any witnesses.
That’s right. The Senate sets its own rules.
clintack: What power does Pelosi think she’s exerting over them by not naming house managers and not sending the paperwork over?
The House Speaker has to the power to drop the matter on the Senate at a time of her choosing. Don’t worry. The stalemate is only temporary.
again you are missing the point, there will be a trial. It is up to the house to present their evidence. Just like in a criminal trial the first question presented will be is there enough evidence to proceed, if there is then the trial will proceed, if not then there will be a motion to dismiss.
starride: Just like in a criminal trial the first question presented will be is there enough evidence to proceed
Yes, that happens before trial, meaning a trial never takes place. During the trial, the evidence is presented to the court.
Have you asked your mom what she thinks? Or can’t she hear you screaming from her basement?
No, it happens at trial, because presenting the evidence is how the court knows whether there’s a case for the defendant to answer.
Comrade Zach is just a paid commie troll.
And dumber than dog doo doo.
Milhouse: No, it happens at trial, because presenting the evidence is how the court knows whether there’s a case for the defendant to answer.
It typically happens during a preliminary hearing, which occurs before trial where the prosecutor has to show evidence sufficient to establish probable cause.
What happens at the committal stage is irrelevant at trial. Every criminal trial has to start with the prosecution establishing a case.
1 The house has no say in what happens in the senate, per the constitution the houses authority on impeachment ended at the moment of the vote. It is not fully in the senates hand. Besides what is wrong with the rules that were voted for when Clinton was impeached. People conveniently keep forgetting the fact that that is the rules McConnell wants to use
2 The only one who wants to work behind closed doors is the left. they have been working in a basement.
3 your statement makes absolutely no sense the senate doesn’t want the articles, they could care less if they ever get them. This is akin to a prosecutor publicly filing an indictment then saying but I don’t want to prosecute this. The only benefit she gets out of this is maybe a few news cycles when she does transmit them. In the end it is meaningless.
Correct. There are already rules, they merely has to be a ratification. 51 votes. The rules allow pretrial motions and witnesses. Federal Rules regarding hearsay are incorporated. Schumer wants to create more evidence via witnesses prior to motions etc. Further, these are witnesses for the most part for which executive privilege was already asserted. Not having been heard from in the House, they are aside from the charges leveled. Schumer is trying to draw out the trial and act showboat, and McConnell is not buying his silly nonsense.
starride: The house has no say in what happens in the senate, per the constitution the houses authority on impeachment ended at the moment of the vote.
The House and Senate rules require the House pass the articles to the Senate.
starride: Besides what is wrong with the rules that were voted for when Clinton was impeached. People conveniently keep forgetting the fact that that is the rules McConnell wants to use
Uh, no. There were witnesses presented during the Clinton trial.
starride: The only one who wants to work behind closed doors is the left. they have been working in a basement.
The House impeachment hearings were in public. They were even on the TV.
starride: your statement makes absolutely no sense the senate doesn’t want the articles, they could care less if they ever get them.
They’ll get them — when it suits the Speaker of the House.
There were no live witnesses in Clintons trial
Only video excerpts of closed door depositions with Monica, Vernon Jordan and Sid Vicious Blumenthal
murkyv: Only video excerpts of closed door depositions with Monica, Vernon Jordan and Sid Vicious Blumenthal
That’s right. Their testimony was videotaped. The same could be done with White House officials, including the President.
The witnesses had already given testimony in the House
They were NOT new witnesses that the House didn’t take the time to call in during their investigation
You lunatics want a second investigation done by the Senate
It doesn’t work that way, regardless of what you are told to post
murkyv: It doesn’t work that way
New witnesses are often called at trial, such as when they were not available previously, or if there is new evidence that has come to light.
puhiawa: Further, these are witnesses for the most part for which executive privilege was already asserted.
The White House is invoking absolute immunity, which has no foundation in the Constitution or court precedents and constitutes obstruction of Congress.
No, the White House is invoking its usual executive privilege, which is pending in the courts. That’s where privilege usually goes and is, by definition, not impeachable. Trump is asserting his right, the House is asserting theirs, and the courts make the final call.
Let’s not forget that impeachment was decided on before inauguration. Verdict first, then find the crime.
By all means, let the trial begin.
There’s comrade Zach, making up stuff again.
What kind of person lies on blogs for a minimum wage living?
Comrade Zach.
stevewhitemd: No, the White House is invoking its usual executive privilege, which is pending in the courts.
Trump is claiming “absolute immunity”. That’s not “usual executive privilege”, which has historically been a very limited privilege.
Another court approved a Freedom of Information Act request for White House emails about Trump’s action to block military aid to Ukraine. Turns out the block was made within minutes after the “perfect” Trump-Zelenskyy phone call, and included instructions to withhold information about the hold from Congress in violation of the Impoundment Control Act.
“Turns out the block was made within minutes after the “perfect” Trump-Zelenskyy phone call”
No. The decision to withhold aid was made on July 18, a full week before the phone call.
Doc Nova: No. The decision to withhold aid was made on July 18, a full week before the phone call.
There was notice of intention early in July. The actual withholding of aid apparently happened immediately after the Trump-Zelenskyy call. Nor was Congress informed, as required by law.
There is already SCOTUS impeachment precedent-Nixon vs United States 1993, that states the House has zero control over how the Senate chooses to “try” an impeachment. The House has the “sole authority” to impeach and the Senate has the “sole authority” to convict or acquit. They don’t even have to hold a trial before acquital and SCOTUS has deemed it “unjudiciable.”
1) We have rules. There is Senate precedent, most recently the 1998 rules agreed to on a bipartisan basis to impeach Mr. Clinton. Those rules were adopted 99-0, as I recall. Seems like we have rules.
2) She can make a case for a public trial, but the Senate is not required to do a “public trial” — by rule, it has the right to decide that the evidence presented by the House Managers doesn’t warrant a full trial and simply an expedited vote of acquittal.
And be careful what you wish for: unlike in the House, in the Senate a “public trial” would give the Pubs, and Mr. Trump, the right to call witnesses. Like Hunter Biden…
3) Good luck keeping Cocaine Mitch off-balance. It might happen someday, but I haven’t yet seen it.
Never underestimate The Murder Turtle and his ability to use Senate rules to get what he wants
stevewhitemd: 1) We have rules. There is Senate precedent, most recently the 1998 rules agreed to on a bipartisan basis to impeach Mr. Clinton.
Comity still existed. The Democrats don’t trust the Republican to be fair when it comes time to call witnesses. Do you really think Republicans will allow Democrats to call the witnesses they believe are important to their case?
stevewhitemd: 2) … {The Senate} has the right to decide that the evidence presented by the House Managers doesn’t warrant a full trial and simply an expedited vote of acquittal.
The Senate certainly has the constitutional power.
stevewhitemd: 3) Good luck keeping Cocaine Mitch off-balance.
Do you mean Moscow Mitch? Sure. Pelosi’s tactic is only of limited value.
At this point, Senate Republicans’ refusal to allow Dems to call witnesses would be eminently fair, based on the Dems’ refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses in the House. Turnabout, as they say, is fair play. Indeed, refusing the Dems witnesses in the Senate is the only way to balance the proceedings overall. What’s not fair about it? After the performance in the House by Schiff and Nadler, you can’t honestly believe that if the Dems controlled the Senate that they would now allow Republicans in the chamber to call their own witnesses. They played what they thought was a winning hand in the House. Why would they surrender that advantage in the Senate? Well, for only one reason – to give a semblance of fairness to the trial, because the vote would be just as partisan with the Dems in charge as it will be with the Republicans in charge.
DaveGinOly: At this point, Senate Republicans’ refusal to allow Dems to call witnesses would be eminently fair, based on the Dems’ refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses in the House
So a prosecution shouldn’t be able to call witnesses after a grand jury proceeding where only the prosecution can call witnesses. What a novel idea!
Tell me when the rule for “managers” was put in place, please. I can’t seem to find it.
Anywhere.
This is just a way for Pelosi to distance herself.
None of those three points address J’s very obvious question. In what reality does this make sense as a pressure tactic? As McConnell said, Pelosi is telling the senate “Do as we want, or we’ll refuse to do something you don’t want us to do”.
Imagine Trump telling the House “Pass this bill or I’ll resign”. The Dems’ response would of course be, “OK”. It’s not exactly a threat. Can’t you (and Pelosi) see that that’s exactly what she’s doing?
Oops. See below.
That is hilarious. I know it wasn’t intentional, but it is still hilarious. And don’t forget that there is a 20% restocking fee when you return your Sword of Damocles.
An early Christmas gift for the #NeverTrumpers in your life:
https://mobile.twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1208175406140051456
Out here in Deplorable Land, even the town drunk is smart enough to look at Pelosi and her Democrat posse and say, “Them boys ain’t too bright”. That was true yesterday and will also be true tomorrow.
It has been clear for awhile that Speaker Pelosi has been relying on the advise of Lawrence Tribe who is no longer a sane man. Additionally, Pelosi seems to have lost her gut political instincts which would have steered her away from this present disaster.
I hope and pray this all leads to a Republican majority in the House.
Harvard, huh?
We have a saying here in the Boston area, “You can always tell a Harvard man, you just can’t tell him much”. Many, not all, are elitist a-holes.
I learned a long time ago that there is timeless wisdom in the mvie Forrest Gump:
“You cain’t fix shtupid”
Wouldn’t it be funny if tribe’s name comes up on the list of Ukraine kickback money?
Or maybe not so funny…
McConnell can schedule the impeachment trial
two weeks after Congress returns if he wants. The Supreme Court has no place in telling the Senate what to do.
Damn, 2020 is going to be fun! Barr and Durham are hot on the trail of a certain former director of spooks, who I believe utilized his spookdom to spy on a political party under the thinnest of evidence; somebody committed perjury in testifying before Congress and Trey Gowdy; Professor Mifsud’s phone records; we will likely find out the true reason Barr was in Italy; and last, but not least, the young Democrat House members who capitulated to Pelosi are gonna get out the long knives. (That is, if they survive their race in 2020)
There are simply too many moonbats at Harvard to try and keep track of them all.
Just wait until November, when Professor Tribe starts explaining how the House has the authority to reject Electoral Votes if they think voter suppression invalidates those results.
Don’t give him any ideas
a) It’s not up to the House. The only way to reject electoral votes is if both houses agree that they’re invalid. If a state returns only one set of votes, and only one house votes to invalidate them, they get counted.
b) In any case it’ll be the new House. And Mike Pence will be the one counting the votes.
I wouldn’t trust this a-hole Tribe to mow my grass. Nothing more than a pompous ass blowhard. I hope Tribe reads this.
“When we see the process that is set forth in the Senate, then we’ll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward and who we will choose,” Mrs. Pelosi said shortly before the House adjourned for the rest of the year.
—–
Nancy, you have to pass the AOI to the Senate to see what’s in the process.
Mar. 11, 2010
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”
Is it only me or does Tribe look like he’s got an old butch lesbian inside his face?
had this crazy thought, dems who are frustrated at Pelosi for not moving this forward align with republicans and get pelosi removed as Speaker. Dems would have to find another nominee and vote a new person as Speaker and move the process forward.
The impeachment hawks can’t be happy that this has stalled.
Now that the dust has settled a little bit, I will reiterate my point on this sham impeachment. The democrats came up with two non-articles that do not comply/comport with any aspect of Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution. They voted on “abuse of power” and “obstruction of congress.” These are not in Article 2 Section 4. Furthermore, the democrats did not include/allege any Article 2 Section 4 violations within their fake articles either. The plain language of the Constitution states Articles based on Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors are to be voted on and sent to the Senate in cases of impeachment. Without those specific allegations, congress may as well have passed the articles “we hate Trump” and “she wasn’t supposed to lose.”
CKYoung: the democrats did not include/allege any Article 2 Section 4 violations within their fake articles either. The plain language of the Constitution states Articles based on Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes or Misdemeanors are to be voted on and sent to the Senate in cases of impeachment.
We can play word games all day long: “RESOLVED, that Zachriel, Commentor on LI, is Impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors…”
Confess your crimes Zachriel, or we will levy another charge of “Obstruction of LI” on you.
The definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is whatever the House says it is. In this case, winning the election.
Milhouse: None of those three points address J’s very obvious question.
Z: To set the timing, keeping the Republican Senate off balance.
Milhouse: As McConnell said, Pelosi is telling the senate “Do as we want, or we’ll refuse to do something you don’t want us to do”.
Pelosi is not refusing to do it. She’s delaying it to a time of her own choosing.
I see you got the same Talking Points as Sen. Whitehouse.
And you repeat them as if they actually mean something other than and meaningless act of desperation as a result of having lost the battle.
“Off balance”?! What does that even mean? It’s not as if the senate cares when the articles arrive. As far as it’s concerned never is just fine. The longer she takes the happier they are. In the meantime they’re just getting on with their business.