For the liberals on Twitter who just don’t get it, I will explain.
- The Hashtag #impeach is not going to work. We don’t impeach officials by hashtag [every other week]. There is a process. You can yell #resign every week at the President(and others)by hashtag,but chances are the people you are yelling at are ignoring you anyway.i don’t even respond to this nonsense anymore on Twitter.They’ve used it so much it’s gotten old.
- What is impeachment?
It is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official. (source:Wikipedia).
You may be disheartened to hear this,but not one single Pres who was ever impeached was removed from office. Bill Clinton served 2 terms.
Nixon was never impeached. He resigned. Mostly because,unlike Democrats who stand by their own regardless,the Republicans held him accountable.There was actual wrongdoing in his case.
So what does the Constitution say re impeachment?
“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
The House,people. Not Adam Schiff,not Speaker Pelosi,not Jerry Nadler. THE HOUSE.
They struck out on that one. Even Speaker Pelosi tried some verbal engineering saying the process they were using was not an impeachment inquiry but a resolution. Whatever it is they are doing it is not an impeachment. They finally took a vote on the Inquiry at least.All but 2 Democrats voted for; all the Republicans PLUS 2 Democrats voted against. Pelosi said it would have to be bipartisan. It was not but why would anyone hold Pelosi to her word?
So what happens next?
Articles of impeachment are the set of charges drafted against a public official to initiate the impeachment process. The articles of impeachment do not result in the removal of the official, but instead require the enacting body to take further action, such as bringing the articles to a vote before the full body.
A person of a high office must be removed upon impeachment if they have committed a high misdemeanor, a felony, or treason, they are nevertheless subject to indictment under the law. source: Wikipedia
It’s hard to tell what the House is going to do next. It really depends on what Adam Schiff and Speaker Pelosi want to do.
If the articles end up going to the Senate it would require a super majority to convict.A Super Majority is 2/3 of the members present and that currently stands at 67 out of 100,assuming all are present.
Another words,it’s DOA in the Senate. Here’s where the Senate Majority fearless leader McConnell comes into the picture. I heard a report that he has spoken to President Trump and given him a hair brained scheme. IMHO this scheme has fail written all over it but let’s not digress. Let’s get right to his plan.
He holds the trial which will be over quickly(he believes)and Trump is not convicted which is exactly right. The Democrat candidates out on the campaign trail would have to pause to get back to the Senate. I guess the idea is [that]1they would be tied up for enough time to screw up their campaigns. He’s right on that count but there are some unforeseen consequences he isn’t taking into account.
We know for a fact there isn’t going to be a super majority voting for;trial or not.
The problem here is that the same candidates who are out on the campaign trial would use the trial to basically campaign from the Senate and get their own base fired up over removal of Pres Trump and less time having at each other before the election.
Second,it would give the Schiff ‘impeachment’ sham legitimacy. For that reason alone i would kill it before it got started.
Let’s say his hair brained scheme did go forward,what’s next?
The Constitution requires that when the Senate is conducting an impeachment trial of the president, the chief justice of the United States, in this case John Roberts, presides over the proceedings.
However, McConnell – or in fact any senator – could intervene at this early stage. Senate impeachment Rule VII lets senators pose questions about the process and vote themselves on what the answers should be.
They could, for instance, ask Roberts to dismiss the case, effectively ending the trial before it begins. Even if he refused, as long as they didn’t call for a formal change to the rules (which needs a two-thirds majority to pass), the senators could overrule him with a simple majority vote.
McConnell could also use Rule VII to introduce into the trial new information that would be to Trump’s political benefit – such as asking Roberts to subpoena Joe Biden and his son Hunter…If Roberts declined, again the senators themselves could vote to issue the subpoenas.
I wouldn’t waste the time on this since the Dept of Justice could ultimately take a look at the Bidens deal with Ukraine(the quid pro quo Joe bragged about)and it’s possible they already are. I would however call Eric Ciaramella & his associates to testify.
Who is Eric Ciaramella? [the term whistleblower was used for cover]. He is the operative planted in the White House who may also be involved with the phony Steele/Simpson dossier as explained here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/more-on-the-now-infamous-eric-ciaramello-hes-connected-to-the-fake-steele-dossier-and-the-transfer-of-funds-from-the-imf-to-the-ukraine/
In 1999, Democrats used this method in an effort to dismiss the impeachment charges against Bill Clinton. source: https://theconversation.com/if-impeachment-comes-to-the-senate-5-questions-answered-124632
Either way the impeachment is DOA in the Senate. I don’t like the idea that the Schiff Sham would be given legitimacy it doesn’t deserve. That in itself is destructive on so many levels. On the other hand the Republicans would have a leg up on exposing all the corruption that to date has gone on unchecked.
I don’t give McConnell much cred. Never have,never will. He has only managed to back the President when its served his own interests. If it’s to McConnell’s advantage he supports the President. The rest of the time he acts like he doesn’t know him.
For me what it comes down to, as you look at the pros and cons, is that the House Inquiry has all been a sham and there are no charges to bring against Pres Trump. Has anyone been able to articulate the high crimes and misdemeanors Trump has committed? NOPE. That’s a sham too,just like the Russian Hoax.
Rand Paul has the right idea:
I hope Pres Trump did not get snookered by McConnell once again. It’s a terrible scheme and it’s going to fail. I named a few pros that could be achieved by other means,such as the one proposed by Rand Paul. The problem is Lindsey Graham as the head of the judiciary committee and Mitch McConnell as the majority leader- to date they haven’t done squid.Symbolism and talk don’t cut it.We’re in the fight of our lives for the Republic. Somebody better stand up for the President and make it sooner rather than later. There are ways to stop the trial dead in its tracks.
Constitutional Law Scholar Mark Levin* explains how:
UPDATE :now this is more like it Lindsey
Lindsey Graham: If They Don’t Call the Whistleblower in the House, This Thing is Dead on Arrival in the Senate https://t.co/9UgJrKNtkg
— Patriot Fan Page (@Stella_Basham1) November 10, 2019
*The GREAT One