Image 01 Image 03

McConnell: Dems Appear ‘Too Afraid’ to Hand Senate Their ‘Shoddy Work’ on Articles of Impeachment

McConnell: Dems Appear ‘Too Afraid’ to Hand Senate Their ‘Shoddy Work’ on Articles of Impeachment

Sen. Graham adds: Democrats proposed delay in sending Articles of Impeachment to Senate “becomes Constitutional extortion and creates chaos for the presidency.”

After the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said the Democrats may wait to send the Senate the Articles of Impeachment to try to exert pressure on the Senate at to impeachment trial rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell slammed Pelosi and the Democrats on the floor this morning.

McConnell tore into Pelosi and the Democrats over the possible delay:

McConnell will lambaste the impeachment from the Senate floor as “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair … in modern history,” according to excerpts of his floor remarks released ahead of the speech.

McConnell will say those articles are “fundamentally unlike any articles that any prior House of Representatives has ever passed” and the idea Democrats will withhold the articles suggests “House Democrats may be too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate.”

“The framers built the Senate to provide stability,” McConnell will say. “To keep partisan passions from boiling over. Moments like this are why the United States Senate exists.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also lashed out at Pelosi:

Trump responded:

Pelosi claimed the delay would happen because she fears the GOP-controlled Senate “are incapable of holding a fair trial.”

From Fox News:

Pelosi was then asked about possibly withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate until they get certain reassurances, and the Speaker refused to give a direct answer.

“Again, we’ll decide what that dynamic is, but we hope that the resolution of that process will be soon in the Senate,” she said.

Pelosi proceeded to read a statement from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., about impeachment procedure and used it as an example of what she considers to be an unfair process.

“Let me tell you what I don’t consider a fair trial,” she told the crowd of reporters. “This is what I don’t consider a fair trial — that Leader McConnell has stated that he’s not an impartial juror, that he’s going to take his cues, in quotes, from the White House, and he is working in total coordination with the White House counsel’s office.”

She finally deferred to the Senate as the final arbiter of Trump’s fate and accused the president of withholding vital documents from Congress.

“It’s up to the senators to make their own decision working together, hopefully in recognition of their witnesses that the president withheld from us, their documents that the president withheld from us and we would hope that that information would be available in a trial to go to the next step. Because that’s another level in terms of conviction, in terms of this,” Pelosi said. “But right now the president is impeached.”

Pelosi said the timing to hand over the articles “would ultimately be a joint decision between the House and Senate.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


This mangy Democrat dog caught the car’s bumper.

Now she doesn’t know what to do with it.

    Petrushka in reply to fscarn. | December 19, 2019 at 12:33 pm

    The moment between getting laid and realizing you got screwed.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to fscarn. | December 19, 2019 at 12:43 pm

    Yes, the DIMS chopped down on the chrome car bumper and found all their dentures were yanked out.

    4fun in reply to fscarn. | December 19, 2019 at 9:47 pm

    Shorter McConnell:
    The House is full of children and the adults of the Senate will not oblige their behavior

    — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) December 19, 2019

“On the sole count of ORANGE MAN BAD how do you find?”

I don’t see anything in the Constitution that says the Senate must wait until the House “hands over” the articles of impeachment. Unless Pelosi wants to pretend that they somehow never voted on them in the first place.

Call their bluff, Mitch: set a trial date. “Do Nothing Democrats” should be in every Republican speech and Tweet from now until Election Day 2020.

    American Human in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | December 19, 2019 at 11:23 am

    Perhaps Mcconnell can “deem them passed to the Senate”. Much like Peolsi wanted to do with the passage of Obamacare.

      legacyrepublican in reply to American Human. | December 19, 2019 at 11:49 am

      I think a better place to take this would be to the Supreme Court and ask them to issue a Writ of Mandamus. Either deliver the Documents or declare them void.

      The constitution specifically states that it is the Senate which determines the trial date and specifics of the trial.

      To dictate terms to the Senate is an abuse of power by the House and I believe the court could nullify the impeachment on procedural grounds forcing another vote.

      I believe the court would say that unless an impeachment includes the automatic passing of the impeachment to the Senate without reservation, it is not impeachment.

        If the House and Senate have, respectively, the “sole” power to impeach and convict, there would appear to be no role for SCOTUS. Roberts won’t let his court do anything to damage its standing with the élite; do you really think he’d step into this political question?

          legacyrepublican in reply to zennyfan. | December 19, 2019 at 1:09 pm

          The President is no different than any other citizen in this country. He has a civil right to a speedy trial.

          The political aspect of the impeachment process notwithstanding, prior impeachments have always granted civil rights to the accused, which include due process and the right to a speedy trial.

          ANY legislation passed by the House must provide for the civil rights of the person affected by such legislation.

          I would think a bill of impeachment is no different.

          Milhouse in reply to zennyfan. | December 19, 2019 at 6:59 pm

          The President is no different than any other citizen in this country. He has a civil right to a speedy trial.

          No, he doesn’t. He doesn’t have any rights in this process except those the senate chooses to grant him. It can give him due process but it doesn’t have to. And there’s nothing any court can do about it; it’s not justiciable.

        I don’t think that Chief Justice Roberts and the four Democrat Justices would agree, even if the other four Justices were willing. Roberts especially is vain and egotistical, and he would love to poke Trump in the eye to maintain his standing in Washington social circles (he did it for his wackadoodle Obamacare ruling).

        Start the Senate trial ASAP. If the crooked Democrat prosecutors don’t show then acquit.

          It would be a hard sell to convince the court that stifling the constitution is OK

          MarkS: gun control laws – a direct assault on the Bill of Rights – are just one shining example of “stifling the Constitution”. There is nothing in the behavior of the Democrat Party that indicates any knowledge of the Constitution, beyond half-heartedly invoking it now and again to justify whatever dirty work they are up to. It is debatable if Democrats have even read the Constitution.

        No. There is no constitutional ambiguity for them to clarify. The House has passed their Articles of Impeachment. It is now up to the Senate to schedule the beginning of the trial phase. It is NOT negotiable. The Dems either show up to present their case or the Senate can summarily dismiss the charges or vote to acquit. THAT is the fastest and cleanest option.

        Going to court is a bad idea for many reasons, especially when there is a much better, faster and easier remedy. As I state below the senate should just adopt a rule or pass a resolution that says if articles aren’t sent to senate within 14 days of adoption they are automatically dismissed and the President acquitted for want of prosecution.

      MattMusson in reply to American Human. | December 19, 2019 at 12:38 pm

      The Senate can set a deadline.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Recovering Lutheran. | December 19, 2019 at 12:36 pm

    Send in the Marines to seize it?

I am disappointed that Mitch doesn’t just simply announce the Senate will pass a resolution that considers the articles dismissed if not handed over in a timely manner.

Aren’t the articles of impeachment public? Use those!

It is scary, really, to think that Peolsi believes the Senate won’t be fair. It is equally scary to believe that after all the shenanigans the House went through to ram these articles through i.e. The Shiff and Nadler shows, they would, in their heart of hearts, believe that the Senate won’t be fair.

    She keeps using that word.
    I don’t think it means what she thinks it means.

    tom_swift in reply to American Human. | December 19, 2019 at 1:19 pm

    It has nothing to do with the Senate being “fair”. It’s an excuse for the House not sending the case on to the Senate, especially as Nan knows perfectly well that the Senate will do nothing to accommodate her demands.

    If the House simply fails to pass the case to the Senate, then The Base will blame the Dems for killing the whole effort to remove Orange Man Bad. You can hear the outrage already—”they had him but then threw it away!” The D’s have to find some way to not pass it on but blame those dastardly Repubs in the Senate for it. And this is it—claim to be waiting for changes (to enhance “fairness”) which everyone knows will never happen. So the impeachment hangs in the air, unresolved. In Ehrlichmann’s phrase, “Let him twist slowly, twist slowly in the wind.” Which won’t bother DJT, but the D’s are plumb out of ammunition so they have to shoot duds.

How many Congressional Democrats are actual trial (litigation) attorneys?? How many cases have they tried? What are their success rates? Bigger question: How much did they earn and how much did their client receive?

Given the joke of the blatantly un-Constitutional House “investigation” and Impeachment vote, one would conclude that any trial lawyers in the House got their Law School diplomas from a box of CrackerJack. Further, their clients all were ripped off since they had a fool for a lawyer.

Pelosi…the delay would happen because she fears the GOP-controlled Senate “are incapable of holding a fair trial.”

Quite the contrary. The Senate is quite able to hold a fair trial.

First thing that should happen is every hidden transcript that the Dems did in their secret basement should be extracted by immediate subpoena with no waiting a week, deadline of today.

Second thing that should happen is every party to the disputed 2016 event involving Joe Biden and the Ukraine should be made publicly available, which includes the transcripts of every presidential US/Ukraine call made during that time frame and the years running up to it, subpoenas for every diplomat and aide who traveled to Ukraine during that time frame, and an exhuming of every paper generated by the Obama administration during that time relating to the Ukraine.

After a brief break to mop the floor, due to exploding heads in the Media and the Dems…

    Milwaukee in reply to georgfelis. | December 19, 2019 at 1:48 pm

    Yes and no.
    Yes to publicizing all the testimony and all the documents. Put them out in the public domain.
    No to bringing them to the Senate trial.
    Here’s my idea. Have a table with printed transcripts of the testimony publicly presented to members of Congress from the committee meetings. Then pick them up one at a time. “Members of the Senate: this testimony is from someone who never spoke with the President, and is not a fact witness. Shall we accept it?” No, of course not. No evidence from anyone who is sure they know what Trump was thinking. Eventually the pile of acceptable testimony will get real small and will favor the President. Based on that testimony acquittal will easily follow.

How does this whole impeachment fiasco play out in the Law Schools? I cannot imagine this can be whitewashed. What is being said in the classrooms?

The Articles: Vague conclusions based on counterfactual assertions. The Dems should be so proud.

Now Pelosi thinks she can tell the Senate how to do their job. I guess because she did such a great job in the House.

    Well, she is third in line, and since she considers the first two to be illegitimate, maybe in her delusional state of mind, she thinks she has the right and the authority.

    zennyfan in reply to TX-rifraph. | December 19, 2019 at 12:44 pm

    Well, she is third in line for the presidency, and if Trump is impeached and convicted, Pence could be impeached before he could name a vice president, and she would become president and appoint Hillary as her vice president, and then she would resign and Hillary could be president and sit behind the Resolute Desk in the real office office, not just a facsimile as in an art exhibit, and that’s who Pelosi thinks she is.

The House trying to tell the Senate what to do.

That will play out as well as the rest of this has.

The purpose of impeachment was never about the Constitutional process of impeaching and removing from office. It was about generating headlines and making it impossible for Trump to do his job.

The lie about wanting fairness is just for media consumption. It is irrelevant to what Pelosi actually wants or how she intends to get it.

Prolonging the agony is part of the strategy.

“But right now the president is impeached,” the owner of a pair of loose choppers said last night.

And if I’m Donald Trump, I’m updating my resume adding that distinction to my CV. Trump should wear that distinction as a badge of honor. Who wants to have adulations from the despicable Democrats.

More than 20 years ago my partner (RF) and I took on a prominent but buffoonish/do-you-know-who-I-am Democrat from the Northeast with solid claim.

The facts were with us; the law was with us. What wasn’t with us was the swirl of Democrat politics. From the defendant himself, to those in the local US Attorney’s office, to the assigned federal judge, to the judges on the First Circuit panel, it was wall-to-wall Democrats.

Their marching orders: “Protect this guy at all costs.” And the word went out and the predicable happened. To this day RF and I wear the distinction of having lost to this despicable lot proudly. The left may have “won” but had to contort their legal “reasoning;” nothing made sense. It was an exercise of raw power. These people revealed their real and thoroughly debased character.

Isn’t this “threat” something like, “Gimme what I want or I’ll hold my breath until I turn blue”?

So, don’t forward the Articles if you don’t want to. But there’s no political upside to doing that, as voting to impeach and then failing to act on that vote can only be seen as a display that the impeachment itself was pure grandstanding and lacking in all seriousness.

The House has no pressure to exert here, as by failing to move the impeachment forward the House leadership can only show the world how deeply unserious it was was to begin with.

Why not just have a big political-catharsis session in which everyone shouts, “I don’t like that man!, I don’t like” that man!. And therefore, because it’s hurtful to me to see him as President, my emotional safety requires that he be removed from office.

    Milwaukee in reply to Albigensian. | December 19, 2019 at 12:16 pm

    In my experience, “gimme what I want or I’ll hold YOUR breath until you turn blue” works much better.
    Ya just hafta let go soon enough so they can regain consciousness and change their mind.

If the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate, then NO impeachment occurred. All that happened Wednesday was the house took a vote on sentiment. It’s not an impeachment if there is no trial.

Following through on Tribe’s “strategy”.

“Moments like this are why the United States Senate exists.”

If the senate were in democrat hands, they’d remove Trump from office.

The critical thing is that the system is now unstable. Congress chooses the president whenever one party controls both houses.

The speaker of the house they choose becomes president; and the speaker need not even be a member of congress.

    rhhardin in reply to rhhardin. | December 19, 2019 at 12:02 pm

    The founders expected the need for an actual crime would stabilize the system. It did for a couple hundred years, but that’s gone now.

    Another vital gentlemen’s agreement gone.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rhhardin. | December 19, 2019 at 1:08 pm

      Yes, the founders didn’t visualize the Democrat-Nazi Party and their total LIES all the time Media.

      tom_swift in reply to rhhardin. | December 19, 2019 at 1:30 pm

      The Dems started using impeachment as a tool to remove inconvenient members of the opposing party by 1804, if not earlier. They’ve always been the shit party, except (arguably) for a few years after 1800, when they countered some serious excesses inflicted by the Federalists—most obviously the grotesque Sedition Act of 1798.

20-20 hindsight, but maybe if McConnell and Graham hadn’t been so intent on exposing their hand, maybe it would have turned out differently. I’m curious: What happens if a D.A. convenes a grand jury and gets an indictment, and then decides not to go to trial? It certainly couldn’t be held over a defendant’s head forever.

    MarkS in reply to txvet2. | December 19, 2019 at 1:03 pm

    Try convincing CNN, ABC, CBS…et al

    JPL17 in reply to txvet2. | December 19, 2019 at 2:13 pm

    In that case, the defendant would have the constitutional and/or statutory right to a speedy trial, followed by the right to have the charges dismissed if there were too many unjustified delays by the prosecution. The same principle should apply to impeachment.

      Barry in reply to JPL17. | December 20, 2019 at 1:13 am

      “The same principle should apply to impeachment.”

      But it doesn’t. Impeachment is its own constitutional process.

    Hollymon in reply to txvet2. | December 27, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    The notion that a single member of Congress is unbiased- that’s all 535 members of both houses- is as naive as it is wrong. Mitch and Lindsey just told the truth.

    So, they’re biased and Chuck Schumer is not.


    It’s politics, people. They lie just like the rest of us, red and blue both.

    At this point, it’s raw power that matters and my money’s on Team Mitch.

Everyone has lost sight of the end game; which is to keep the accusations, innuendos, harassment, bile and name-calling alive until the election. In essence this is a campaign to tarnish the President for as long as they can

Pellosi, ad. nausea either just realized it or got caught up in the negative, character assassination media campaign they never thought the Senate could just end it by voting impeachment down without any hearings. Case closed, go home for the holidays; front page will see Trump vindicated.

The reaction is to delay this result, and keep the invective swirling on the pages of social and other media; and the ignorant, headstrong Republicans are helping the Democrats with their demand for a trial, etc. Dumb, Dumb and Dumber.

There is an interesting 6th amendment case to be made here, related to the right to a speedy trial.

    Better than the courts is The senate should just adopt a rule or pass a resolution that says if articles aren’t sent to senate within 14 days of adoption they are automatically dismissed and the President acquitted for want of prosecution.

    The fifth & sixth amendments apply only to criminal trials, not to trials on impeachment. In this process Trump has only those rights the senate chooses to give him.

Dear Speaker–an impeachment trial will begin on January 13 if and only if articles are delivered by then. The rules of the Senate will be determined by the Senate, not anyone in the House. If articles are not delivered by then, the matter will be dismissed. If no actual trial occurs, it will be evidence of Obstruction of the Senate by the Speaker. Yours truly, Mitch.

Trump should cancel all congressional use of military aircraft. Put that hideous witch and her coven in coach along with the rest of America she has violated and victimized.

Hoping for just desserts if/when Barr & Durham finally cough up and send the disgraceful, treasonous, lying Dems scurrying for cover.

    MarkS in reply to DuxRedux. | December 19, 2019 at 1:06 pm

    I wouldn’t put too much faith in Barr/Durham as they are giving Pelosi lesson in how to stall. Speaking of which, how’s that Huber thing coming along?

      txvet2 in reply to MarkS. | December 19, 2019 at 11:09 pm

      In all fairness, Durham has got a lot on his plate. Barr said today that his investigation has moved far beyond the FBI into other agencies and private parties. He could be going for years, but that doesn’t mean that he won’t be kicking off a few indictments as he moves along.

I think this may be the motivation behind the Tribe-Pelosi “hold the Articles” strategy.

“hopefully in recognition of their witnesses that the president withheld from us, their documents that the president withheld from us and we would hope that that information would be available in a trial ”

The Dems want to put pressure on the courts to force release of Mueller Grand Jury data, Trump’s tax, business info and totally destroy any barriers created by “separation of powers”….and to prove “obstruction of Congress”

Billy Mays couldn’t sell the impeachment.

Have the trial. Commence starting the second week of January. Provide proper notice to the House. If the House Managers show up, great, admit them and extend all the usual courtesies. Let them present their case; take all the time you need, Representatives. After they’re done, run the trial and let the Defense have their turn when ready.

If the Managers don’t show up, read in the impeachment articles from the Congressional Record. Since no managers are present, the proceedings turn immediately to the Defense. What’s that you say, the Senate can’t do that? Of course it can, says so in the 1999 rules that are the precedent here.

In either case, we’ll get to the point where the Defense may call witnesses and present new evidence as they wish. While Chief Justice Roberts presides, it’s a majority of the Senators who get to decide which witnesses are called and what new evidence comes in. If the Chief Justice becomes difficult, Mitch chats quietly with him about how Mr. Roberts will be overruled by the full Senate each and every time.

Compel Joe Biden to testify. Let him refuse to come to the floor of the Senate, swear an oath, and talk about how he helped his son in the Ukraine. When Mr. Schumer screams that that is out of order, he’s out-voted. Mr. Biden? Here’s your subpoena, be here on this date or the US Marshals will collect you. Mr. Hunter Biden? Ditto. Mr. James Comey? You too, come along. And so on.

You would have to let the Senate Democrats cross-examine these defense witnesses and examine the evidence, of course. After all, we’re nothing but fair here. I bet they’d refuse just to get the show over with as quickly as they can. But the Republican Senators will have questions, and more questions, etc. And lots of new documents to present.

Mitch could draw this out as he wishes — Senator Warren, why were you at your campaign rally in Fumbuck, California, in May when you could have been doing your constitutional duty at the Senate trial?

Mitch always delivers the shiv ice cold. It would be a pleasure to watch the grandmaster at work.

    While you’re dreaming up your fantasy witness list, may I suggest the current and a couple of former Ukraine Prosecutor Generals?

    That is a logical scenario for this sh*t show but it is predicated on Mitch having 51 reliable Senate votes. With Romney, Collins, Murkowsky and a few others in the mix, that 51 votes is far from certain. Interesting is if Trial procedural votes were 50-50…How would Justice Roberts vote to break the ties??

      Actually, I think McConnell already has his 51 votes. He flat-out rejected Schumer’s demand to call new witnesses, and there is no way he would have done that if he didn’t have the votes to back it up. Nor would Pelosi withhold the articles of impeachment if Democrats thought they could get what Schumer is demanding.

      Pelosi’s stalling while whining about “fairness” is her best effort to play a bad poker hand, a hand that will only get worse as time goes on. Every time some Democrat demands the right to call more witnesses the Republicans can say, “Why didn’t you do this when you were running your Soviet-style secret hearings in the House? Didn’t you tell the American public that the case against Trump was already rock-solid?” The impeachment polls, which were not very good to begin with, have only gotten worse the longer this goes on.

      txvet2 in reply to SHV. | December 19, 2019 at 11:14 pm

      Pence is President of the Senate. I don’t see why he wouldn’t perform his constitutional duty of breaking ties.

        With the Chief Justice in charge of Senate impeachment, the VP has no vote.

          That doesn’t appear to be compatible with Article I, which includes no such exception. The VP is a non-voting member of the Senate, except in the case of ties. In the case of impeachment, it should also follow that he’s a member of the jury who likewise only votes in the case of ties.

    Milwaukee in reply to stevewhitemd. | December 19, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    “If the managers don’t show up….”
    “Woman, where are your accusers?”
    Heard that before.

Random thoughts … the Dems are simply trying to make enough noise amplified and broadcast 24×7 by complicit liberal media to drown out Trump, his team and supporters because Trump dared pull back the curtain on Ukraine which is a death sentence for any Dems involved. How the Dem antics remind me of a grade schooler who sticks fingers in their ears while yelling “Nah nah – nah nah – nah nah – I can’t HEAR you!” to someone they don’t want to hear and to prevent others within earshot from hearing them. The Dems are behaving childishly.

Last evening Recovering Lutheran wrote in WAJ’s ‘rue the day’ blog post “Tomorrow there will be millions of genocidal Democrats who will realize that impeachment =/= removal.” The thought of that is enough to make me wish I were still working just so I could hang around the water-cooler and relish in all the liberal tears when they learn DJT is still president. And Pelosi’s delay in transmitting the articles to the Senate for trial is only prolonging DJT’s presidency. Oh how I hope POTUS vetoes that s*** sandwich of a spending bill the house passed.

Owing that the Dems are a disparate coalition of radical factions – a political “what’cha’got” stew – we ought just put a lid on them and crank up the heat. Let them pressure-cook. If Pelosi couldn’t keep a lid on the “squad”, what chance does she have of keeping the lid on her caucus and their constituents? Already today the press is hounding her about sending the articles to the Senate and she’s refusing to take questions. The pressure to follow articles of impeachment with a trial to remove won’t be going away.

Pass the popcorn. This is gonna get good!

The real fun will begin when RBG passes. It might very uncomfortable to explain how he gets to pick her replacement while Nancy holds her water.

The senate should just adopt a rule or pass a resolution that says if articles aren’t sent to senate within 14 days of adoption they are automatically dismissed and the President acquitted for want of prosecution.

Someone forgot to see if their opponent could blink before starting the game Chicken. Trump is the anti-Marty McFly.

It’s more useful to the DNC to hold onto the Articles as a talisman, to wave at the President, from time to time.

If it’s sent to the Senate, it and their case will be shredded, destroying the value of their creation.

So, they with hold it and claim it’s the Senate’s fault, for not buying into their bullshit.

thalesofmiletus | December 19, 2019 at 3:44 pm

The constitution does not require that the House actually physically send something that has passed that lower chamber, up to the Senate, before the Senate can take it up. Trigger Warning! I am about to post from the actual constitution:

Article 1, Section 7.2
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

The constitution does not require the House to actually send things to the upper chamber that it has passed, nor does it require the Senate to wait on the lower chamber to physically send it something before it can act on that which has passed. Precedent is also irrelevant because of what the constitution says only a few paragraphs before section 7:

Article 1, Section 5.2
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

This section entitles the Senate to make its own rules on how it will proceed, and that includes on what legislation they will debate/vote on, and when they will do it, and those Senate rules can be changed with a majority vote. The constitution does not set out the procedure or a checklist that has to be followed, it is for each chamber to decide on its own. House procedure does not trump the constitution, and house procedure does not take precedent over senate procedure. Once the roll is taken, the votes are cast for House Res 755 (impeachment), the votes are recorded, and it is logged as passed in the books (it has been), then the Senate has full constitutional authority to take it up.

The house would be appointing its managers to be the prosecution, not to present the articles, because that isn’t required. The constitution requires neither that there be impeachment managers, nor that articles are transmitted by them, or at all. Mitch McConnell needs only to make a rule the passage of the articles triggers the trial, set a date for the trial, and if the House doesn’t appoint and send managers, then the trial proceeds without the prosecution present.

Anyway, most of this is moot, since both houses have adjourned for the holidays – although the Senate will likely continue their newfound habit of conducting pro forma sessions to avoid recess appointments.

McConnel should tell Chuckles the Effing Clown that the senate would be using the precedence used in the house towards the republicans would be in place.

McConnel won’t because being a worthless RINO,he lacks the guts.

I wonder if Nancy is having trouble getting competent house members to volunteer to act as managers in the Senate? There’s a good chance that the managers of such a weak case will be humiliated publicly. She should compel Nadler and Schiff to do it instead of allowing the two fools to pass their foolishness on other members.

Exactly ! Pelosi don’t want any fair trial at all, they didn’t have a fair inswuiry and weouldn’t allow witnesses thaty would have exhonerated Trump. So now that they have nothing that is impeachable and railraosded Trump, they want the Senate to do the same. It’s over, Trump will be vindicated in the Senate, and Democrats have given Trump a landslide win in 2020. Pelosi is powerless to do anything in the Senate, and McConnell sould tell Pelosi to hold on to those articles all she wants to, if fact he should tell her to shove them up her @ss if she’d like to.