is it possible to keep the articles of impeachment in the house

[pink]

and not send it of to the senate until the Democrats know for sure they have the numbers to kick the creep out. By doing that, they would still have succeeded in impeaching him and not give him the satisfaction of the senate exonerating him.

[leftieNanner]

1. According to John Dean

It is!

[pink]

2. Do you think it would be a good idea? n/t

[joshdawg]

9. Yes!

[lame54]

11. Yes - they can add a couple articles of impeachment a week

[Brother Buzz]

30. Woohoo, and that would push the orange anus around the bend. The Sanity Claus Is Coming to Town

You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Sanity Claus is coming to town
Sanity Claus is coming to town
Sanity Claus is coming to town

He's making a list
He's checking it twice
Gonna find out who's naughty and nice
Sanity Claus is coming to town
Sanity Claus is coming to town
Sanity Claus is coming to town

[sprinkleeninow]

3. You and me. This thought also has been coming my way lots lately!

[pink]

4. I cant see anything positive coming out of the impeachment if it moves on to the senate

and then is defeated. The creep will be claiming at his rallies that he was found innocent of all charges. I think that after they take the vote in the house, which will certainly be to impeach, thats where it should end. He will still be impeached and forever be known as the president that was impeached.

I've watched a great deal of the Impeachment Show and have been absolutely gobsmacked as to how the Republicans refuse to acknowledge that they have a crook in the oval office.

[sprinkleeninow]

5. I caught parts of today's hearing and that abbreviated amount alone made me

almost convulse. I posted in general discussion a link to the segment on PBS Newshour tonight of Cipolline's letter saying drumpo won't show to testify and his words are everything the repukes are guilty of! God Almighty!

The Dems should run this into the ground, no let up. What's there tons of criminality? Recently schlumpy barked out to impeach him now and get it done so he can receive a fair trial. Yah, so hearing that, Dems should do the opposite and drag it out.

[pink]

7. I think you're right

If they called the republican's bluff and went to court to force all those scoundrels that were subpoenered to show up or spend time in jail. The hide of those republicans to say that the dems dont have first hand knowledge, when they are holding back on all the proof. Something sure is rotten in Denmark.

[sprinkleeninow]

10. It has come to they got my undies in a bunch majorly.

I feel the brink of my endurance hearing the hearings. Namby pamby went out the door. Crap on them all. They dish, the Dems dish it right back. Keep the articles coming down the pike. I have NEVER expected to witness such as this revolting thing in all my born days.

[DanieRains]

6. Our Presidential Candidates Don't Have Time For Knuckle Draggers In The Senate To Delay / Throw Fits

Going to crazy town and building a Trump Tower there right in the Senate to cover up Trump's crimes, and to impress his cult so they vote for them.

Impeach, then keep investigating all the other crap he has done.

Impeach him for the slam dunks, and don't relent.

They could work on holding hearings on Barr's obstruction, and spending millions on useless investigations of the FBI and not real criminals doing real crimes, and ignoring a stack of criminal referrals.

[Recursion]

8. You mean until after the election?

You can't bind the next Congress like that

[BigmanPigman]

12. I heard this idea over the weekend and it seems good to me!

[onenote]

13. As a practical matter, probably not.

If Congress adopts articles of impeachment, it would be unprecedented for the House not to follow up nearly immediately with a resolution naming Senate trial managers and instructing that the articles be presented to the Senate. That fact alone would cause most House Democrats to be extremely wary of sitting on the articles as the media and Republicans would have a field day attacking House Democrats for not having the courage to follow through and for denying Trump his "day in court."

And the House Republicans could and would force Democrats to vote on whether or not to move the process to the Senate. Such a resolution would be "privileged" in House parlance and must be voted on, even if the vote is merely to table (kill) the resolution. House Democrats who just rushed to vote on articles are not going to publicly vote to stall the process.

Finally, Pelosi would never support such an effort. Having declared it a Constitutional imperative to impeach, she isn't going to leave the Democrats open to charges that the effort was a sham.

If the Democrats don't want the articles to go to the Senate now, then they shouldn't adopt articles yet.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Agree

[lastlib]

14. Merrick Garland in reverse!

MoscowMitch wouldn't give Garland even a tour of the Senate, let alone a hearing. Four Hundred(!) House-passed bills are languishing in the Senate. Orange Shitgibbon wants a Senate trial to exonerate him. So, Don't give him what he wants! Let it hang over his head through the campaign--or forever.

"What? We didn't send that impeachment thing to you, Mitch? Oh, well, we'll see if we can find a two-toed sloth to bring it over to you next year. KTHXBAI!"

[onenote]

19. McConnell could prevent a vote on Garland. Pelosi can't stop a vote on referral to the senate.

No way House Democrats publicly vote against sending the articles they just approved to the Senate.

[lastlib]

20. House doesn't have to vote on sending to the Senate; they just don't send it.

They vote to impeach, and sit on it. Let it hang over his head everywhere he goes for the next 10 months or so.

[onenote]

24. Wrong.

If a Republican offers a resolution to name impeachment managers and to direct that the articles be delivered to the Senate, it is a "privileged" resolution and must be taken up immediately before any other business can be conducted. While the Democrats could vote to "table" (and thus kill) the resolution, that vote will be portrayed as an unprecedented vote to stonewall the Senate and deny Trump his "day in court".

Pelosi isn't going to let this happen. She publicly declared that impeachment is a constitutional imperative that the House should act now. She's not going to let Democrats be accused of running a sham process.

[getagrip_already]

31. as long as there is a reason, it would be fine

For example, pelosi could have the motion brought up and tabled herself, with the explanation that she would release it when negotiations with the senate over the rules were concluded.

This is leverage. She can say she wants the rules to be fair, that moscow won't negotiate with shumer, and demand a conference with mccarthy, schumer, moscow, and roberts to agree on rules.

moscow could ignore her, but that will look pretty ham fisted.

It could work, and if it doesn't, no harm done.

[onenote]

32. Pelosi cannot "table" a privileged resolution herself.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have no direct experience working on Capitol Hill. Which is why you may not understand how privileged resolutions are handled. They take precedence over other business and either are voted up or down on the merits or are the subject of a motion to table, which must be voted upon without delay and is effectively the same as an up/down vote.

I can give you an example to illustrate. Two years ago, back in December 2017, Rep Green introduced articles of impeachment against Trump. This was at a time when Pelosi did not support impeaching Trump. . Instead, Republican Kevin McCarthy immediately offered a motion to table the Green resolution and his motion was approved on a roll call vote in which 126 Democrats, including Pelosi, joined every Republican in voting to shut down Green's impeachment effort. If Pelosi could have tabled the resolution herself, presumably she would have done so But she couldn't because there is no such procedure.

[kentuck]

15. They could continue to investigate to determine if they need to add other Articles.

I don't know if there is a time limit to send to the Senate? Or if it is required at all?

[onenote]

23. There is no time limit but a delay would be unprecedented

and the Republicans could force the Democrats to vote against a resolution to send the articles to the Senate. That is not a vote many Democrats are going to want to cast.

Pelosi has made it clear that impeaching Trump is a constitutional imperative. She's not going allow the process to be stalled.

[madville]

16. That would be a cop out at this point

Would send a message that the Democratic leadership is not confident enough to proceed with the process.

[kentuck]

18. They will be plenty confident if they pass the Articles of Impeachment.

They will be more than happy to turn the responsibility over to the Senate, in my opinion.

Karma has come around and kicked McConnell in the ass!

[onenote]

22. The messaging would be extremely bad for our side

Why rush to adopt any articles if they're not going to be sent to the Senate? Democrats would have to cast a public vote NOT to send them and no Democrat that just voted for Articles is going to want to do that. The media and Repubs will have a field day talking about how the Democrats are breaking with precedent and not giving Trump his day in court. They won't pay the slightest bit of attention to whatever further investigations are going on.

It's just a bad idea.

[pink]

25. precedent was broken when the White House refused to comply with the impeachment inquiries.

I think the time has come for the democrats to take the gloves off and play dirty. Its not going to do democrat's election chances any good if Trump can go around saying that the senate exonerated him from all charges. I don't want to see him have the satisfaction of playing the innocent. Keep it in congress until all the subpoenaed witnesses and papers have been handed over.

[onenote]

27. Who gives a crap about that.

Playing "dirty" only makes sense if it gives you an advantage. In this case, having members rush to adopt two articles of impeachment and then turn around and immediately vote not to send them to the Senate would blow up in our faces. No one will pay any attention to whatever investigations continue after that. It will be drowned out by all the noise about the sham articles blah blah blah.

You can bet the mortgage that Pelosi, having given the high sign to the House to vote for articles now, isn't going to support sticking those articles on a shelf until some undetermined time based on some undetermined events.

If we don't want the articles to go to the Senate or to be seen as stonewalling the process, don't adopt the articles yet and keep the investigations going.

[FiveGoodMen]

28. Agreed.

[pink]

21. I suggest that we treat the senate the way the white house has treated congress

We complete the impeachment process in congress and then use delaying tactics and not send on to senate. In the meantime follow up on the subpoenas through the courts to either call in for questioning the hostile witnesses or have the courts deal with them.

[dewsgirl]

26. That sounds like an amazing idea.

[pink]

29. Whether any of you agree with me or not

I am just so fed up with countries such as Australia, USA, UK, Brazil, Turkey, Hungary and many others being run by climate denying crooks. The sight of Agent Orange going around claiming that he was found innocent of all charges just sickens me.