Saw a discussion today that brings up a very good point:

1.  House passed the articles of impeachment

2.  Pelosi is holding onto the articles until the Senate agrees to the Dem's demands on how the trial will be run

So,

A.  if the President is actually impeached right now, the Senate could not be held hostage over the trial rules.  The Senate has the SOLE POWER to try impeachment. cases  Therefore, if Trump were actually impeached, the Senate would have a DUTY to schedule the trial within 30 days according to the Constitution.  They could do that today without the House transmitting the articles.  But, since we know they can't do that yet, it means Trump has not been impeached.

B.  Pelosi is supposed to select house managers, or basically prosecutors, to deliver the impeachment articles to the Senate and to present the House's case at trial.  There can be no trial without the managers, just like there can be no criminal trial if the prosecution fails to show up.

Bottom line:  Trump has not been formally impeached right mow,

All of the constitutional scholars/experts that I follow agree with what you wrote here. This includes one of the Dems main impeachment witnesses.

Pelosi is just trying to pull a power grab by trying to control the rules for the senate trial. She has nothing to do with how the senate does their job. It is none of her fucking business. It’s all a political ploy because they know the senate will acquit. All of the impeachment theatrics was really a huge waste of time.

All of the constitutional scholars/experts that I follow agree with what you wrote here. This includes one of the Dems main impeachment witnesses.

Pelosi is just trying to pull a power grab by trying to control the rules for the senate trial. She has nothing to do with how the senate does their job. It is none of her fucking business. It’s all a political ploy because they know the senate will acquit. All of the impeachment theatrics was really a huge waste of time.

1:  "Why should I apply for CCW in Hawaii?  It's a 100% waste of time, because I know it'll never be approved by the Police Chief."

2:  "I applied for CCW, because the police can't make any decision on my application if I never submit it.  At least now I can say, "I did my part of the process.""

I'm seeing Pelosi taking the same stance in #2.  If the House never impeached Trump, the voters would say a Dem majority-controlled House did nothing the get rid of Trump.  Even though she knew the impeachment was destined to fail in the Senate trial, she thinks the Dem Party can use impeachment in the election, saying "We did our part, but the Senate is preventing us from succeeding.  We need a Dem majority in the Senate, too, to finish the job."

The Dems have one objective:  seize power.  Everything else, including doing the job they are being paid for, is unimportant.

I see two experts cited in that article you posted
I fail to see how that constitutes "many"

So what? How many experts are saying he hasn't been impeached? Is it going to be settled by which side has more experts? I just posted this because it disputed Flapp's claims of certainty. I am not saying which way it is but pointing out that it something not real clear.

The experts you cite are giving opinions, not fact.

The fact is, the HOUSE has impeached Trump, not "CONGRESS".  The Senate has to have their say.  Until the Senate is offered a chance to hold a trial, the impeachment is just a do-nothing resolution.

According to your experts' opinion, any bill the House passes is a law ready to be signed by the President, yet the Senate still must vote before it's a law.

You just said Trump has not been impeached but then said the house has impeached Trump, so which is it? You made the statement, I posted an article of people explaining why he has been impeached, and now you are saying he has been impeached. I guess I should give you credit for admitting when you were wrong.

So what? How many experts are saying he hasn't been impeached? Is it going to be settled by which side has more experts? I just posted this because it disputed Flapp's claims of certainty. I am not saying which way it is but pointing out that it something not real clear.

so what?
you said many, and the source you listed had two
for someone who is so careful how you communicate, you are being so cavalier here
your history as a masterdebator in high school should have taught you that this is not kool
focus

so what?
you said many, and the source you listed had two
for someone who is so careful how you communicate, you are being so cavalier here
your history as a masterdebator in high school should have taught you that this is not kool
focus

I was not on a debate team in high school.

I said many because when I looked into it I found many. I also follow it on news I get from the radio as well as through the internet. I know, I only posted one link. Would it change your mind if I posted 5 links citing 10 sources? Is there some amount of sources that would have satisfied your definition of many and you would be convinced that Trump had been impeached or are you just nitpicking to nitpick?

Try reading the article and digest the explanation of the people mentioned in the article. Maybe you will find it a well supported argument, maybe you won't, but either way then we can discuss the merits or their arguments instead of how many many is.

You just said Trump has not been impeached but then said the house has impeached Trump, so which is it? You made the statement, I posted an article of people explaining why he has been impeached, and now you are saying he has been impeached. I guess I should give you credit for admitting when you were wrong.

You're arguing semantics -- the last resort of someone who has lost the argument on the facts.

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

The House passed 2 articles of impeachment.  From the perspective of the Constitution, the President was impeached by the House majority, and down partisan political lines.  As I said, the HOUSE impeached him, but NOT THE CONGRESS.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

Unless the articles are presented to the Senate, AS THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT STATE THEY MUST BE, then the House's vote has been overridden.  Trump is not impeached, because Pelosi by executive fiat halted the impeachment process in opposition to the vote by the full House.  it's no different than a Presidential VETO that ends a bill's process toward becoming a law.

Impeachment is a process, not a "state".  Trump is not "impeached".  Articles TO impeach him were passed.

I know this is an abstract concept and requires higher levels of intelligence than the average cow to comprehend, but do try to keep up if you're going to argue.

You're arguing semantics -- the last resort of someone who has lost the argument on the facts.

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

The House passed 2 articles of impeachment.  From the perspective of the Constitution, the President was impeached by the House majority, and down partisan political lines.  As I said, the HOUSE impeached him, but NOT THE CONGRESS.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."

Unless the articles are presented to the Senate, AS THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT STATE THEY MUST BE, then the House's vote has been overridden.  Trump is not impeached, because Pelosi by executive fiat halted the impeachment process in opposition to the vote by the full House.  it's no different than a Presidential VETO that ends a bill's process toward becoming a law.

Impeachment is a process, not a "state".  Trump is not "impeached".  Articles TO impeach him were passed.

I know this is an abstract concept and requires higher levels of intelligence than the average cow to comprehend, but do try to keep up if you're going to argue.

The House impeaches and the Senate holds the trial. Whether the Senate holds a trial or not is irrelevant to whether he has been impeached. There is nothing in the constitution that says if the articles aren't given to the Senate that it became overridden. Pelosi is not doing what she is supposed to be doing with the articles of impeachment and that halts the removal process but that doesn't make it null and void. Trump has been impeached.

You are trying so desperately to find some technicality to claim he hasn't been impeached its obvious. The question is why... The House impeached him and the Senate will most likely not choose to remove him so why try so hard? Can't let any facts tarnish the record of your dear leader?

The House impeaches and the Senate holds the trial. Whether the Senate holds a trial or not is irrelevant to whether he has been impeached. There is nothing in the constitution that says if the articles aren't given to the Senate that it became overridden. Pelosi is not doing what she is supposed to be doing with the articles of impeachment and that halts the removal process but that doesn't make it null and void. Trump has been impeached.

You are trying so desperately to find some technicality to claim he hasn't been impeached its obvious. The question is why... The House impeached him and the Senate will most likely not choose to remove him so why try so hard? Can't let any facts tarnish the record of your dear leader?

Seems to me you are the one who's desperate. 

ONE

MORE

TIME ...

Impeachment is a PROCESS, not a RESULT OF THE HOUSE'S VOTE.  The House submits articles of impeachment TO THE SENATE to impeach.  Just holding a vote is not impeachment.  They have failed to perform the last step in the PROCESS as required.  Therefore, TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED YET.

Keep trying.  You're as ridiculous as Pelosi and Schiff.

Simple deductive reasoning answers this question:  if Trump is impeached, the Senate would be scheduling a hearing to vote on the trial's rules.

No impeachment = no trial.

Impeachment is a PROCESS, not a RESULT OF THE HOUSE'S VOTE.  The House submits articles of impeachment TO THE SENATE to impeach.  Just holding a vote is not impeachment.  They have failed to perform the last step in the PROCESS as required.  Therefore, TRUMP HAS NOT BEEN IMPEACHED YET.

Your reasoning is flawed. Nowhere does it clearly state that if the articles are not sent to the Senate that the impeachment process has not been fulfilled. It is just a made up argument people are trying to reason into the process. But feel free to prove me wrong, show me where in the constitution it states that if the articles aren't transferred to the Senate then it doesn't count as an impeachment.

Your reasoning is flawed. Nowhere does it clearly state that if the articles are not sent to the Senate that the impeachment process has not been fulfilled. It is just a made up argument people are trying to reason into the process. But feel free to prove me wrong, show me where in the constitution it states that if the articles aren't transferred to the Senate then it doesn't count as an impeachment.

The Constitution does not clearly state a million things that have been deemed unconstitutional.  Is abortion in the Constitution?  No?  Must not be a constitutional issue, then.

The Constitution does not clearly state a million things that have been deemed unconstitutional.  Is abortion in the Constitution?  No?  Must not be a constitutional issue, then.

You are trying to draw an arbitrary line in the process so it can be claimed that Trump wasn't impeached. They voted to impeach, he was impeached. A hold on the paperwork doesn't change that.

You are trying to draw an arbitrary line in the process so it can be claimed that Trump wasn't impeached. They voted to impeach, he was impeached. A hold on the paperwork doesn't change that.

Watch this video, then tell me I'm the one drawing an arbitrary line.

Even the Democrat Impeachment hearing witness says Trump hasn't been formally impeached. 

I'll rest my case when you PROVE I'm wrong.

Watch this video, then tell me I'm the one drawing an arbitrary line.

Even the Democrat Impeachment hearing witness says Trump hasn't been formally impeached. 

I'll rest my case when you PROVE I'm wrong.

Watched the video. While he makes some detailed arguments and makes some valid points I don't think he makes a solid argument that Trump hasn't been impeached.

When I heard the argument that Trump hadn't been impeached I thought to myself, maybe there is a valid argument there. So I looked at both sides and concluded there is a better argument that he has been officially impeached.

You obviously disagree so we will have to agree to disagree.

Watched the video. While he makes some detailed arguments and makes some valid points I don't think he makes a solid argument that Trump hasn't been impeached.

When I heard the argument that Trump hadn't been impeached I thought to myself, maybe there is a valid argument there. So I looked at both sides and concluded there is a better argument that he has been officially impeached.

You obviously disagree so we will have to agree to disagree.

Post sources.  Otherwise, you opinion is baseless.

There is a process to Impeach a president and that has not been completed yet.  95% of the loading bar is complete.

Think of it like a law.  Say a bill was approved, until it hits Ige's desk, it's not law or vetoed.   Ige has 3 options once on his desk, 1) Sign the bill into law 2) Veto said bill 3) Do nothing and it automatically becomes law by X date.

So this vote of impeachment hasn't been delivered to "Ige's desk" yet.  Which would mean nothing unless it does.

There is a process to Impeach a president and that has not been completed yet.  95% of the loading bar is complete.

Think of it like a law.  Say a bill was approved, until it hits Ige's desk, it's not law or vetoed.   Ige has 3 options once on his desk, 1) Sign the bill into law 2) Veto said bill 3) Do nothing and it automatically becomes law by X date.

So this vote of impeachment hasn't been delivered to "Ige's desk" yet.  Which would mean nothing unless it does.

Passing articles of impeachment is analogous to a grand jury returning a bill to charge (indict) a person with a crime/crimes.

If the prosecutor's office doesn't take action to file the grand jury's charges with the court, then the accused is not officially indicted.

An indictment initiates a trial, just like impeachment does.  The Senate has 30 days from impeachment to take up the matter.  That 30-day clock hasn't started.  You can't say Trump is impeached while admitting the Senate has no duty to schedule the trial.

No trial = no impeachment.

Post sources.  Otherwise, you opinion is baseless.

You are asking me to post a source that the youtube guy didn't make a strong argument?



BTW I did post a source 2 pages ago addressing the question of whether Trump has been impeached.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=35435.msg315056#msg315056

At this point though I don't see any more time on this particular question. Technically impeached or not really doesn't change anything.

You are asking me to post a source that the youtube guy didn't make a strong argument?



BTW I did post a source 2 pages ago addressing the question of whether Trump has been impeached.
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=35435.msg315056#msg315056

At this point though I don't see any more time on this particular question. Technically impeached or not really doesn't change anything.

You gave up, so I must be right.

 

Yes, it does change things.  Either the House has the evidence that Trump committed impeachable offenses, or they do not.  By sitting on the articles PASSED BY THE HOUSE (well, almost all of the House Dems alone), they are demonstrating that the impeachment process was a farce -- a political stunt intended to trash Trump in the 2020 election and pander to the far Left base.

Unless and until the articles are delivered to the Senate, impeachment has been stalled.  Trump can't be in "impeachment limbo".  If he is impeached, the trial begins.  If he's not, then no trial. 

The House led by Schiff and Pelosi are playing political games with their Constitutional duties.  They should be removed from office for abuse of power, failure to abide by the Constitution (they have a solemn and mighty responsibility to impeach when WARRANTED, not play political football with it), and for violating the separation of powers defined in the Constitution by trying to usurp the Senate's role being the sole power to try impeachment.  Holding the articles hostage to coerce the Senate majority in ANY WAY for ANY REASON is beyond their authority in the impeachment process.

it all matters.  We can't as a nation afford for people like these Dems to run amok and obstruct both the President and Senate in the performance of their duties simply for "not being Hillary Clinton".

You gave up, so I must be right.

 

Yes, it does change things.  Either the House has the evidence that Trump committed impeachable offenses, or they do not.  By sitting on the articles PASSED BY THE HOUSE (well, almost all of the House Dems alone), they are demonstrating that the impeachment process was a farce -- a political stunt intended to trash Trump in the 2020 election and pander to the far Left base.

Unless and until the articles are delivered to the Senate, impeachment has been stalled.  Trump can't be in "impeachment limbo".  If he is impeached, the trial begins.  If he's not, then no trial. 

The House led by Schiff and Pelosi are playing political games with their Constitutional duties.  They should be removed from office for abuse of power, failure to abide by the Constitution (they have a solemn and mighty responsibility to impeach when WARRANTED, not play political football with it), and for violating the separation of powers defined in the Constitution by trying to usurp the Senate's role being the sole power to try impeachment.  Holding the articles hostage to coerce the Senate majority in ANY WAY for ANY REASON is beyond their authority in the impeachment process.

it all matters.  We can't as a nation afford for people like these Dems to run amok and obstruct both the President and Senate in the performance of their duties simply for "not being Hillary Clinton".

I tend to agree with your premise. And I might add the fact that Pelosi is using the articles for political purposes should null and void the articles IMHO. I posted an interesting article by Trey Gowdy in the other thread and I agree with his premise. And that this is not about trying to get the senate to call witnesses. That is all BS. According to Gowdy this is all about trying to gain an advantage before and after the 2020 election. The fact she is holding on to them is acceptance that she realizes Trump is going to win in 2020. This game she is playing with the articles is all about holding on to the house, and trying to gain control of the senate. For that reason alone it is obvious the articles are a sham and should be dismissed in the senate immediately making them null and void. JMHO