Let's impeach him now and NOT send it to the Senate rather...

[warrior1]

@JohnWDean

John Dean Retweeted George Conway

Let’s impeach him now and NOT send it to the Senate rather keep investigating in the House, and add such supplemental articles as needed! Just let it hang over his head. If the worst happens and he is re-elected, send it to the Senate. But keep investigating!!

[getagrip_already]

1. It shouldn't go to the senate anyway until...

A conference committee with pelosi, moscow, and roberts determines a set of rules and the senate confirms them.

[lark]

2. You mean Moscow Mitch and Roberts will run an extremely partisan and lying defense of drummpf.

Nothing Schumer wants will be done and the whole trial will be an illegal effort in election rigging by Repugs by lying about Ukraine to get Russian sanctions removed (PUtin's orders) and lying about Biden and Hunter. There will not be any truth in it and will totally ignore every crime and un-American self-profiting action by the president. Repugs cheat and McConnell is the biggest cheat of all next to drumpf.

Please, please, please, Speaker Pelosi, don't send this to the Senate until there is more information released when SCOTUS stops blocking them If SCOTUS does the worst and confirms that they too are anti-American and anti-laws for their side, then don't send it, if possible.

[Garrett78]

3. Frankly, I don't trust Schumer won't just roll over.

[lark]

4. Me neither.

I wish we had a better minority leader in the Senate.

[Garrett78]

5. Yesterday, on NPR, I listened to Tom Daschle heap praise on Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell.

I threw up in my mouth a little.

[lark]

8. He's another one I never cared for a lot.

He's always been too far right for me, but he was totally better than the alternative.

[Garrett78]

12. Of course. But Lott is a racist and all-around horrible person, as is Moscow Mitch.

This goes along with what I posted yesterday: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212757711.

And I'm not even talking about the base. Ugh. Clinton was being very generous by saying only "half" of Trump's supporters are deplorable. The Republican Party, both elected officials and the base, are just plain rotten. And that was true long before Trump came along.

[lapucelle]

28. ...

Charles Schumer is a Populist-Leaning Liberal.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Charles_Schumer.htm

https://bit.ly/369nJEg

[Cosmocat]

18. This

NM

[getagrip_already]

7. I doubt roberts wants a circus....

Any federal judge, especially the cj of scotus, abhores disorder and distespect.

Roberts is especially sensitive to his legacy. While a staunch conservative, he doesnt want to bear the labrl in history of desttoying justice.

He may not want trump removed, but its doubtful he doesnt want the process to be fair, or at least appear fair.

Calling witnesses to explain why someone robbed a bank would not be allowed during the trial phase unless they had a bomb strapped to them. Trumps brlirfs dont exonerate him for breaking the law to target a political opponent.

He can certainly argue he was fighting genetal corruption, but calling biden or schiff isnt necessary to prove that.

Likewise not allowing admin officials to testify cant be allowed.

These are the things that need to be worked out.

And guess what, if moscow wont deal, or drags his feet, no bill goes to the senate. Then it becomes an election issue.

If we just refuse without putting down any process to go to trial or any conditions, it will blow back on us.

[lark]

11. So work with them, if they will be reasonable, but s l o w walk everything.

Negotiate until it's painful, don't just roll over as Schumer has done in the past. All MCConnell wants is to exonerate Russia and drumpf, doesn't care one fig bout facts or truth or our constitution. He wants a fake trial indicting Biden, not drumpf and don't think he will agree until he gets this. Roberts def wants drumpf to win, but likes to see reasonable at times, so this will be a major dilemma for him. If he were a better person, I'd know that he'd stop the election interfering that drumpf and McTurtle want, but he's not.

[onenote]

6. Pelosi and the House have no Constitutional role in setting the Senate's trial rules

It was goofy when a republican House member proposed a resolution that purported to tell the Senate how to conduct the trial. And it would be equally goofy for Democratic House members to inject themselves into the process by which the Senate establishes trial rule.

The Constitutional provision stating that the Senate shall have the "sole" power to try impeachments really does mean "sole."

[getagrip_already]

9. No constitutional role, but constitutional leverage

The senate cant conduct a trial until the house delivers the bill to the senate. That is constitutional.

Its also leverage.

[onenote]

10. There is zero chance the House would sit on articles of impeachment after they were adopted

Not only would it be breaking with precedent, it would end up making the Democrats look weak. Any Republican could make a privileged motion for the House to consider a resolution appointing managers and referring the articles to the Senate. No Democrat is going to want to publicly vote to stall the process.

Pipe dream idea.

[KPN]

21. You know the Rs would do that ... And get away

with it. Pelosi has power and should use it to protect our Constitution from a sham Senate trial.

[KPN]

22. That's like saying the Senate has no Constitutional role in

adopting legislation that addresses the nation’s needs — like the 400+ bills the House has voted on and approved but being shelved forever by Moscow Mitch.

[onenote]

23. It is nothing like saying that.

The Constitution requires both the House and Senate to concur on a bill to enact it into law. But the Constitution, even apart from impeachment, states that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." In the impeachment context, the framers intentionally separated the roles of the House and Senate, giving each "sole" power over the aspect of impeachment committed to their jurisdiction.

Pelosi has no leverage. The Republicans would (justifiably) simply refuse to accept Pelosi's participation in any discussion regarding the rules of the Senate trial. (I suppose they might agree if McCarthy could also participate, which would be awful).

If the House adopts articles of impeachment, the Republicans can and will force a vote on a resolution to appoint managers and send the articles to the Senate. It's a privileged resolution and Pelosi has no power to stop it from being offered and considered. At most the Democrats would vote to table it, which would be tantamount to voting against it. The Republicans would howl...and the media would echo them...that the House adoption of articles was just a partisan sham --that the House Democrats are denying Trump his "day in court." The Democrats would end up caving. Which is why Pelosi would never adopt such a ineffective and self-defeating strategy (in addition to the fact that Pelosi cares too much about the jurisdictional boundaries between the House and Senate to set a precedent by stepping over that line).

[KPN]

20. Yes. Pelosi has and should use that leverage

to ensure a legitimate and thorough trial in the Senate. She holds the power to safeguard democracy and our Constitution.

[CaptainTruth]

13. Make Senators defend the orange criminal. Send it to the Senate AND keep investigating.

[TryLogic]

19. I agree.

If the senate leaves him in office and more evidence for other dirty deeds becomes strong enough, impeach him again for different violations. He wants to be special. Make him the only president to ever be impeached more than once -- thanks to the corrupt Republicans who continue to ignore and defend his violations and crimes.

[wryter2000]

14. Can we do that?

Love it

[moondust]

15. Apparently

Nancy can send it to the Senate whenever she wants to or not at all.

[onenote]

24. Absolutely not true.

The action to send the impeachment articles to the Senate is taken pursuant to a resolution adopted by the House. Such a resolution is a "privileged" resolution. Pelosi can't stop it from being offered. The Democrats could vote to table it, but that would be tantamount to voting to deny it and there is no way most Democrats in the House want to be on record as supporting an unprecedented stonewalling of an impeachment trial.

[moondust]

25. Laurence Tribe says:

~
“You don’t need to be afraid of the big bad Mitch McConnell,” Tribe said. “The House of Representatives at the last minute can decide either to present articles of impeachment or to wrap it up itself, issue a condemnation of the president for having committed high crimes and misdemeanors with specific factual findings and then make him carry that scarlet ‘I’ for impeachability into the 2020 election.”
~
http://www.politicususa.com/2019/06/10/house-democrats-can-issue-an-impeachment-verdict-without-going-through-the-gop-senate.html

That may not technically make him "impeached."

[onenote]

30. Tribe is proposing a toothless, unprecedented course of action

Tribe isn't proposing that the House adopt articles of impeachment and then sit on them. He's proposing that the House NOT adopt articles of impeachment, but merely adopt a report and a Sense of the House resolution finding that Trump has committed impeachable offenses. Such an action would be unprecedented. Tribe claims it isn't, citing the Nixon case. But the big difference is, of course, that Nixon had resigned before the full House had an opportunity to adopt the articles of impeachment recommended by the Judiciary Committee. So instead, the full House voted to adopt a resolution (H. Res. 1333) that merely "takes notice" that the Judiciary Committee had recommended Articles of Impeachment against Nixon, that Nixon had resigned, and "accepts" (not approves or adopts) the Judiciary Committee report that accompanied the recommended Articles of Impeachment, and "commends" the Judiciary Committee for its work.

Here, where Trump hasn't resigned, it would be a much different situation for the House to take the Judiciary Committee's recommended articles and not vote on them directly. And Tribe is dreaming if he thinks the result of his suggested course of action would be that "impeachability" would be foremost in voters' minds in November 2020. Instead, the narrative would be about why the Democrats were too timid to actually carry out what they proclaimed was a Constitutional imperative (i.e., impeaching Trump) and why they sought to deny Trump his opportunity to defend himself in the Senate.

[DallasNE]

16. No

Bills don't carry over from one Congress to the next. I would not risk impeachment in such a manner.

[duforsure]

17. They should hold off and then call more to testify

Then add as the crimes are exposed more, including having republicans asked under oath about being given money from Russians , or their money funneled to them using other groups or people. They'll eventually have to fold explaining why they did promote propaganda for Putin on Ukraine, knowing it was false.

[Dunnjen]

26. It worked on Hilary

She got banghazid ad infinitum, plus the email server ad nauseam. I feel the need for Ukrainium closure, but since that's not realistic, i'll take ukrainium forever as a close second.

[doc03]

27. I trust Nancy Pelosi will make the right call on this, she has handled it

well so far.

[Bayard]

29. They have to try to get him out of the Oval Office as quickly as possible

He continues to stomp on the Constitution, alienating the rest of world, and waging war on the environment and regular Americans.

Neal Katyal has said the same thing, as well as, any number of other knowledgeable people.