House Speaker Nancy Pelosi weighs delaying delivery of articles of impeachment to Senate until Republicans set trial rules she considers fair.
The Wall Street Journal reports House Impeaches Trump, Focus Turns to Senate Trial.
Democrats signaled Thursday they could delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, potentially pushing President Trump’s trial well into the new year, to pressure Republicans to allow new witnesses and evidence in the proceeding.
The House on Wednesday approved abuse-of-power and obstruction-of-Congress articles against Mr. Trump in the wake of his pressing Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. Nearly all Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), supported the charges, while the chamber’s Republicans rejected them, saying Democrats failed to show that Mr. Trump had committed a crime and that they had managed a flawed process.
Mr. Trump will now be the third president to face a trial in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote would be required to remove him from office. But it was uncertain when and under what procedures the Senate would conduct his trial.
What Happened?
What’s Next? In the House
- Pelosi can sit on the charges and do nothing.
- Pelosi can send the charges to the Senate where it is then totally out of her control.
If It Goes to the Senate
- The Senate can choose to end the witch hunt without a trial. All that takes is 51 votes and there are 53 Republican Senators who might just wish to throw this away immediately.
- Trump favors a circus. Amusingly, so does Pelosi. There are people on all sides that want to call witnesses. Pelosi hopes this will backfire on Trump. But Trump believes it will backfire on Biden and the Democrats. Both sides cannot be right.
- Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell wants a trial but no witnesses. It would be over in about the length of time it takes to strike a gavel plus a few Republican speeches of unknown length mocking the trial.
Waiting Game
“We have one card to play here, which is the timing of its conveyance to the Senate, and how can we use that card to try and make the process balanced,” said Rep. Jim Himes (D., Conn.). “I think the speaker has a point of leverage. And she’s going to use that leverage to make sure the trial is fair.”
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D., Ore.) said he had spoken to at least 40 Democrats, including members of the House leadership and the Judiciary Committee, about delaying sending impeachment articles to the Senate, in a move to gain leverage in negotiations.
Some lawmakers raised the prospect that the delay could extend well into the new year, with an eye on possible court rulings that could lead to more witnesses testifying or the release of Mr. Trump’s financial records.
Asked if Democrats could delay sending over impeachment articles for months, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D., Mo.) said: “I’m not going to make the decision, but I wouldn’t rush.”
Earlier this week, Mr. McConnell rejected a request from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) to hear from four witnesses—including former national-security adviser John Bolton —who had been called by the House but were directed by Mr. Trump not to testify.
Let Them Wait
Pelosi wants an agreement from McConnell, but there would be nothing binding about such an agreement.
My Assessment: The public would quickly get tired of Pelosi having charges and not submitting them.
If that assessment is accurate, McConnell can get whatever he wants, just by waiting. Thus, I agree with this call by Senator John Cornyn.
“We don’t care whether they never come,” Cornyn told reporters, holding his hand up to his head like a gun. “It’s kind of like, don’t make me do this.”
A delay in sending over articles of impeachment could put Democrats from competitive districts in further peril. Some of the 31 House Democrats representing districts that Mr. Trump won in 2016 said that they hoped the delay didn’t persist.
Pelosi Has Three Options
- Sit on this forever, looking like a fool.
- Sit on this long enough to make a fool out of herself, then send it to the Senate.
- Change her mind quickly, then send it to the Senate.
Take your pick, but I have the order of likelihood as 3-2-1.
Then, although Trump favors a circus, I expect a short trial, perhaps with a very small number of witnesses that Republicans can destroy, followed by a quick dismissal of the charges.
Why?
Witnesses are unpredictable, the fewer the better to minimize uncertainty.
That is the least risky path for Republicans and even some Democrat Senators may see it the same way.
Synopsis
Ultimately, impeachment is headed nowhere. Meanwhile, the process is on an uncertain, entertaining path.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
The public isn’t demanding an impeachment. So what do the Democrats do with it?
“Stupid is as stupid does.”
“Trump favors a circus. Amusingly, so does Pelosi. There are people on all sides that want to call witnesses. Pelosi hopes this will backfire on Trump. But Trump believes it will backfire on Biden and the Democrats. Both sides cannot be right.”
Both sides are wary of what might happen if Americans find out that those Maidan snipers, who shot protesters on both sides in the 2014 coup, were working for the “new coalition”. That’s ‘US’.
Trump wouldn’t mind a ‘circus’ but a lot of Republicans would.
There are many reasons why Swamp RINOs do not like Trump, but mainly because he is not “one of the (establishment) gang”.
Decadence phase playing out in front of our eyes.
Impeachment is a Heavy Power to wield in response to Heavy Abuse of Power by a Rogue President. And it’s good to use the two-Houses system to prevent overly frothy partisan feeding frenzy use of that Power.
But this is such a petty, flimsy, decepticon-ridden use of that Power that all they have done is tarnish everyone involved with it. So, yes, it is a stain on Trump’s legacy, but it also a stain on theirs, and their successors will find they have less dignity and respect themselves.
But this has been going on steadily since 1913, if not the 1860’s. I guess once they shot Lincoln it was doomed. America benefited from a disease-prone, low tech indigenous population occupying huge terrain ripe for the picking. And then the industrial revolution picked up steam, no end of new people from developed countries could trek out there to build new lives and because they were starting from such low levels in essentially virgin territory, there was a huge boom based on both immigration-fueled population expansion and trade – both domestic and international, both Pacific and Atlantic. But that whole boom phase has been more or less over since the US took over the Empire from the UK during the Great War of 1913-1948. Growth is no longer so easy to come by – at least real growth. New toys simply redistributes cash, status, ways of doing things but isn’t all that fundamentally ‘growthy.’
All world models depend upon perpetual growth to thrive, including the Chinese one. The sustainability challenge is a very real one, but right now that discussion is confused and obfuscated by absurd climate catastrophe superstitions which muddy the waters. Because the real challenge has more about sustainability of economies and cultures than natural resources per se.
In any case, if they are serious about getting rid of Trump via impeachment, clearly the way it is now won’t cut it. But they know that already.
So expect some really nasty stories about him to come out during the Holidays so they can get at least 4 spineless RINO’s to vote some sort of majority motion regarding impeachment, or something to make it hard for R’s to stand and fight and rather give way under the guise of ‘doing the honorable thing’ of ‘keeping their oaths.’ They have those Articles of Impeachment ready to go. Now they have to change the story since clearly that contained in those two Articles are just the initial pretexts. Something more will soon be forthcoming…
And so it goes…
Do you seriously think they have not run out of excuses to get rid of the Usurper That Beat Hillary yet? Even now they have been reduced to just making shit up.
+1 for channeling Vonnegut. And really cogent summary of how America got where it is. But no need to worry, if this impeachment thing had legs, it wouldn’t even be necessary.
When the Mueller report was released many said there would be no impeachment. Impeachment happen. Now the same many are saying it will go nowhere. Who is say what can happen. I can tell you by mid-January more evidence will emerge that will make the same many look at things differently.
Yes indeed, by then the bias of the anti-Trump swamp will be front and center, exposed by real investigators, and even those with TDS will have trouble ignoring it. For the Trump haters to use the government to falsely accuse the president of fake crimes is the worst American crime of all time. We live in interesting times!
May I remind everyone that TDS is an equal-opportunity infector. I’d venture to say that all Trump supporters are infected.
” It’s only third time in history a president has been impeached.” I have to correct you there, Mish. So far it is only half of an impeachment process, and if Nancy is afraid to send it over for the other half, it is NOT an impeachment. If she does send it to Mitch I would not blame him for wasting the least amount of time on the stupidity, even though I would like to see Little Adam Schitt and the fake weaselblower et al called to testify and be questioned, plus the Senators pointing out that the so-called offenses are not impeachable offenses. If the dems think they have any leverage with that, it is just more of the continuing stupidity.
Technically wrong.
Trump was impeached.
There does not have to be a trial nor does Pelosi have to send it to trial for the statement to stand
We seem to have different “Constitutional Expert” advisors.
A democrat law professor says:
link to zerohedge.com
Technically,, Nixon was impeached. The threat of impeachment IS inpeachment.
In fact, the only way impeachment can succeed is via threat. Nixon’s case, when compared to Johnson’s, Clinton’s and Trump’s, proves this.
In other words, the bar for conviction is so high that it would be understood by the defendant that it was inevitable were it so, thus no reason to drag out the process.
So you are saying the threat of Nixon impeachment was credible enough for Nixon to resign; whereas Johnson, Clinton and Trump did or are not facing the likelyhood of a successful impeachment so they were or are correct in saying “go for it”, and it did not/will not happen. Is that your point?
Yes, you nailed it. When support for removal from office is obvious to all, the process becomes unnecessary. Thus, Nixon’s case.
Conversely, if the process is carried out, there is no chance of it succeeding, as demonstrated by the other three cases including Trump’s.
The actual process of impeachment is pure political theater. If it has real teeth, the President resigns — no need to go through the charade.
This reminds me of the old quote “You can’t fire me – I quit!”
As for Noah Feldman, he may be technically correct, but only in a semantic sense.
Since the process of impeachment is pure political theater, the word “impeachment” is a line of dialogue in a play. And it is a powerful word. It amounts to the strongest possible censure of which the House of Representatives is capable, regardless of its lack of overt consequence.
Trump will not be able to control this narrative, Mr. Feldman’s opinion notwithstanding.
Hmmm, McConnell’s FAKE Senate Trial…
OR the King Chaos CIRCUS Sideshow?
Republicans must be asking themselves…
do we shoot ourselves in the left or right foot?
Not long ago I found the story about the guest list for Trump’s wedding to Melania. Hillary was front and center, along with many other newscaster, including Couric and Matt Lauer.
That they attended his wedding and then turned on him just says so much in my book.
Ditto with an impeachment in search of a crime. If the case was so airtight, Pelosi would have sent the papers over already.
Dysfunctional national government — a libertarian’s dream.
Is it? The bureaucratic machine is still mostly working.
What we have now in the West is anarcho-tyranny.
…with the nice, anarcho, part restricted to an ever dwindling gaggle of well connected half literates flying in tight formation around The Fed… The rest being stuck with much less nice, but much more typical, tyranny.
I suggest you study what the term anarcho-tyranny means.
Nice circus in the banana republic of US.
The very fact that Pelosi wants to delay sending it over proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the impeachment is purely political and has no basis in law.
All artifacts of politics are purely political. No empirical “proof” (as if such can even exist i any meaningful way in political “science”) required.
Also, the constitution grants the power to impeach to the house, while the power to try a president on those impeachment charges falls to the senate. Nowhere does the constitution say how the house has to conduct their impeachment nor how the senate is to handle a trial. These are matters of internal rules the bodies have formulated themselves, and subject to change. One thing is clear though, the constitution does NOT permit the senate to simply not try a president on house impeachment allegations just because two different parties hold the separate houses. They are required to uphold their oaths of office both as a body and as individuals, letting a president off of charges for purely partisan reasons might well happen, but that body and the senators in it will be held to account by the public in the next general election.
Personally I believe that Pelosi is holding the charges until Moscow Mitch reverses course and promises to hold an actual trial on the evidence rather than what he is currently promising, to allow the White House counsel to basically run the show. To refuse to call witnesses, in effect no trial at all. And I don’t care because there is no better way to galvanize the left than for McConnell to simply let Trump off the hook without even hearing the evidence, of which there is plenty that he has abused the office and it goes without saying he has committed other crimes of obstruction, such as witness tampering.
Also, she awaits the result of the SCOTUS on the release of his financial records, and we all know if the house gets their hands on those the fat orange spy is going to prison.
2016 was an anomaly and the best argument ever for the termination of the electoral college, 2020 will see that corrected. I don’t even like the democratic field and especially those so called “progressives” that are actually socialists that can’t wait to tear apart American life and values. But, I am so disappointed in the Pavlovian party of Trump I will be voting for the democratic nominee in November if Trump is your nominee. Had you stuck to REAL American values and true conservatism that grants individual freedoms over government control of our lives I would be with you, but what the GOP has become is even more treasonous than the socialists are stupid. I will not abide this.
As REPUBLICAN Jeff Flake said, ask yourself if the accusations were made against Barak Obama; what would you do then? And do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining, we all KNOW what the GOP attitude would be in that case.
Thank you Herkie! You provide support to the point I made above. Bringing up issues unrelated to the two charges against the president (like the electoral college and financial records) shows you to be a partisan hack despite your “fig leaf” of cover by saying you would vote republican if they weren’t so treasonous!LOL!
It is not for Pelosi to try and dictate what happens in ‘the other place’. She has presided over such a shoddy and disgraceful spectacle it makes Roland Freisler’s ‘People’s Court’ seem the very model of jurisprudence.
If and when the stupid woman sends this pile of crap up to the Senate I am sure the Senate will form a ‘Court’, but at that point under the rules of the Senate, many normal Judicial rules come into play, which will destroy the House’s case at a stroke. ‘Hear say’ is not evidence and will be dismissed by the Chief Justice out of hand, so I would not envy the house managers presenting their so called ‘case’. And I am not certain under Senate rules if the House can expand its case by seeking to summon witnesses not previously relied upon.
Of one thing I am certain: the President has been consistently denied benefit of Law. As Sir Thomas More observed ‘I would give the Devil himself benefit of Law for my own safetys sake’. I hope that there will dawn a day when filth like Schiff, Naddler and Pelosi come after YOU because then you might bitterly regret not giving even Trump the benefit of Law.
“as RINO Jeff Flake said……” Fixed it for ya.
The whole case – such as it is – rests on the premise that it is a high crime for the Chief Executive to encourage an involved Foreign Power to investigate US citizens involved in bribery or corruption in that FP’s jurisdiction IF – and only if – those US citizens involved are political opponents in a presidential campaign. That goes for their relatives as well. (Although investigating all of the Presidents family and their businesses going back decades is perfectly kosher of course.)
If it is verboten to investigate political opponents, then Trump should be impeached and removed from office for such a heinous crime.
However, if he is simply doing his duty (as well as defending himself from past and future false attacks – like the Russian Collusion operation) then he should not be impeached or removed from office.
Whether or not this issue will be treated properly in whatever process ensues remains to be seen. Because like everything in DC, most of what goes on is part of a great Reality TV National PsyOp ‘talking points’ process rather than all that much to do with hard core government. That said, removing a President is no small thing and at the least merits High Court Drama.
In which case, you might get the witnesses you want; but then the R’s and PDJT will get the witnesses they want; and you might not like what they have to say, and nor will many on both sides of the political aisle, and the military-industrial-intelligence complex, and the media.
So probably that won’t happen….and instead there will be a quick dismissal after which the Dems can throw a national ‘election-of-a-lifetime’ tantrum to ‘get back the Senate to throw this impeached bum out – we already have the impeachment Articles sitting ready to go if you just give us the Senate.’
And so it goes…
“Witnesses are unpredictable”
…
“You Can’t Handle The Truth!”
Try me.