What if they don’t send it?

Hey y’all, do you remember the time Mitch McConnell refused to let Barack Obama name a Supreme Court Justice?

by O Society Dec 19, 2019


Ole Tippy the Turtle just made up some nonsense about lame ducks and parliamentary procedure. Stole it right out of Garland’s hands. Here’s a recap.

As leader of the Senate, McConnell refused to do anything about the nomination. Just ignored it. And it worked.

So what if Nancy Pelosi does the same thing now? That’s right.

The House delays sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. What if it never sends them?

Trump is then impeached by the House of Representatives and never gets the chance for McConnell’s Senate to exonerate him by the rigged henchmen members.

Donald Trump is then in an impeachment limbo forever. No trial. Never found “not guilty.”

It’s genius if this is what House Speaker Pelosi is doing. Now I haven’t used the words “genius” and “Pelosi” in the same sentence, well, ever. So don’t count on her being this brilliant because well, you know the Democrats. They find a way to f’it up every time.

But what if? What if the House just doesn’t send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Ever. It would be a wonderful opportunity to make Trump and McConnell impotent. Neuter them in front of everybody.

All she has to do is nothing. Blather something about parliamentary procedure and lame duck presidents. Just like McConnell did with the Garland nomination. Done.


Sun Tzu Art of War 22

Some Democrats — including some of the chamber’s most progressive lawmakers — advocate simply never sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, to deny Mr. Trump an almost certain acquittal in the Republican-controlled chamber, where a two-thirds vote — 67 senators — are needed to convict. Ms. Pelosi has not ruled that out, but House leaders are not seriously contemplating that course, the Democratic officials said.

The House is scheduled to leave Washington at the end of the week for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, meaning if she does not take the action by then, the fate of the articles could be left unresolved until early January, when Congress reconvenes in the capital.

The Constitution does not dictate how the process of transmitting articles of impeachment from the House to the Senate should work. It says only that the House has “the sole power of impeachment” and that the Senate, “shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”

12 thoughts on “What if they don’t send it?

  1. Because our politicians news media focus on hype instead of policy, I am still uncertain of how this tactic would play out. Here’s someone making a case the Senate can change the rules of impeachment trial to whatever they want the rules to be:

    “The Senate does have rules for impeachment, including one that triggers the trial process “[w]hensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed” to prosecute the case. But those rules can be changed by a simple majority vote, and McConnell’s party enjoys such a majority.”



  2. I’m somewhat disinterested in the whole impeachment process. But if that were to happen, it would be quite amusing. That would irritate Trump to no end because there would be no way for him to manipulate it to gain any advantage. It would simply hang over his head with no resolution.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I get so tired of the Blue people vs the Red people manufactured drama. Both groups live in different worlds such that the actual world normal people live in is excluded from consideration. What is the real deal, not the sanitized for your protection biased version?

    Here are the rules straight from the Senate’s mouth. According to these, nothing happens until the House appoints managers.


    I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the
    House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their
    part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are
    directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the
    Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of
    Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the
    managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of
    impeachment, agreeably to such notice.

    II. When the managers of an impeachment shall be introduced
    at the bar of the Senate and shall signify that they are ready
    to exhibit articles of impeachment against any person, the
    Presiding Officer of the Senate shall direct the Sergeant at
    Arms to make proclamation, who shall, after making
    proclamation, repeat the following words, viz: “All persons
    are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while
    the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the
    United States articles of impeachment against —— —— ”;
    after which the articles shall be exhibited, and then the
    Presiding Officer of the Senate shall inform the managers that
    the Senate will take proper order on the subject of the
    impeachment, of which due notice shall be given to the House of



    1. It seems to me to be obvious:

      “Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the
      House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their
      part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are
      directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate”….

      The Rules are not from the Constitution… did anyone think they were??

      And where does it say that the Senate itself, having been notified via the news media and public announcements from the House that a positive vote was taken therein on articles of immpeachment; but that no formal appointment of “managers” will be empowered to “carry” articles of impeachment to the Senate; that OTHER rules and processes in the UPPER HOUSE can’t be proposed, voted on, and established which do NOT require this particular process???

      Each branch of our Legislature has the power to establish its own rules for process and procedure; don’t they??? It is an internal matter.

      This situation is NOT analogus to the Supreme Court appointments stalled by McConnell. That was entirely the business of the Senate after nominations were presented. Here, the process may begin in the LOWER House (which establishes its own rules) but REQUIRES an “adjudication” be done by the UPPER HOUSE in order to complete that which started in the LOWER HOUSE. How the business of the UPPER HOUSE is conducted is entirely the business of the UPPER HOUSE with zero input required on the procedure chosen to complete the Constitutional authority established.

      Impeachment by the LOWER HOUSE without transmission of charges and team to press them to the UPPER HOUSE is literally meaningless and nothing more than grandstanding for the “audience”.

      You can’t fool all of the people all the time and THIS time the outlook doesn’t look good for fooling a majority.

      There is NO way this will work in favor of those who voted for the articles of impeachment in the LOWER HOUSE, individually or by party affiliation.

      Keeping your attention off of the real collapse of our Country, which in no way is solely attrbutable to President Trump or a single party, seems to be the whole point.

      The failure over the last four months to find buyers, outside of our own Government, for the debt which we are rolling in, like pigs in a sty as if the food is going to just keep on coming, is notable. (Roughly 50% of the most recent sales of our astromnical and skyrocketing operational debt over the past four months have been funded by us. – Foreign buyers seem to be thinning. That is unsustainable and if linearity holds, April bodes ill for us all!)

      A vote to impeach is meaningless without the trial and there is no way a trial will sustain the publicized articles of impeachment passed by the LOWER HOUSE. The UPPER HOUSE can establish new rules of procedure and proceed with a trial or can even pass a resolution establishing a time frame which, if not met, renders any “charges” from the LOWER HOUSE null and void.

      But “Look!! Look! A Squirrell!!


  4. Discovered Laurence H. Tribe – University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard and author of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment” – came up with the idea before I did. Tribe very well may be the one who gave the idea to Pelosi in the first place. Not sure how all this will turn out… legal trials usually go by precedent, and there aren’t many to go by, so who knows what creative stuff they’ll come up with? Nothing would surprise me any more, except the Democratic party actually doing something smart – ha ha!

    Impeach Trump. But don’t necessarily try him in the Senate.
    June 5, 2019

    “To think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided. The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict. And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial — an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.

    Take, for instance, the 1974 investigation of President Richard M. Nixon when the House gave the president the opportunity to refute the charges against him either personally or through counsel and with additional fact witnesses. (Nixon chose to appear only through his attorney, James D. St. Clair.) Following its impeachment proceedings, the House Judiciary Committee drafted particularized findings less in the nature of accusations to be assessed by the Senate — which of course never weighed in, given Nixon’s resignation — than in the nature of determinations of fact and law and verdicts of guilt to be delivered by the House itself, expressly stating that the president was indeed guilty as charged.”


  5. Who’s laughing now? Ha ha ha!

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing to President Donald Trump what no one else has in the nearly three years since he took office: She’s making him squirm.

    In the wake of an impeachment inquiry and with a looming trial in the Senate, the president has become increasingly frustrated by Pelosi’s unprecedented decision to withhold the two articles of impeachment against him from the upper chamber until Majority Leader Mitch McConnell guarantees a fair and impartial trial.

    Pelosi’s refusal to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate has robbed the president of what he wants most: “total and complete exoneration” following a trial.

    Trump, for his part, has made no secret of his fury. He spent Christmas evening ranting about Pelosi and impeachment to his 68 million Twitter followers.

    “Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with ‘no pressure,'” Trump tweeted on Wednesday night.

    He added, “She said it must be ‘bipartisan & overwhelming,’ but this Scam Impeachment was neither. Also, very unfair with no Due Process, proper representation, or witnesses. Now Pelosi is demanding everything the Republicans weren’t allowed to have in the House. Dems want to run majority Republican Senate. Hypocrites!”

    This week’s complaints were just the latest in Trump’s months-long tear against Pelosi and the impeachment inquiry.

    The day after House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment this month — one charged the president with abuse of power, and the other charged him with obstruction of Congress — Trump made 60 statements before noon.

    The public airing of grievances is a staple of the Trump presidency.

    In the three years he’s been in office — and long before that — Trump has made a habit of using Twitter and the media to lob attacks at everyone and everything, including Democrats, the former special counsel Robert Mueller, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the actress Rosie O’Donnell, and the mainstream media.

    Trump had legal troubles before.This month, Trump paid $2 million to eight charities after a New York judge ruled that he and his family had used the now defunct Trump Foundation as a slush fund to bolster his campaign and pay off business expenses.

    Last year, Trump agreed to a $25 million settlement to be paid to former students of Trump University, which then-New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman described as a “sham university” that swindled “thousands of Americans out of millions of dollars.”

    Asked about Trump’s mind-set in recent days, one Republican strategist in frequent contact with the White House, who requested anonymity to discuss internal conversations, told Insider Trump was incensed about impeachment because he believes it undermines his political prowess.

    “One way or another, everything goes back to 2016,” the strategist said. “For two years after he took office, the president had the Russia cloud hanging over him.”

    “To him, that investigation was synonymous with the belief that he didn’t win the White House on his own, that he had help from the Russians,” the strategist added. “Looking ahead with the 2020 election, he’s facing new allegations once again that he needs outside help to win an election, that he can’t do it on his own. And he thinks that’s bulls—.”

    Exacerbating things further is Pelosi’s position as the tip of the Democratic spear.

    The House speaker has been a thorn in the president’s side since January, after the Democratic Party resumed control of the House of Representatives.

    Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that Trump was not only unable to stop the investigation but also helpless against the flood of career nonpartisan national-security officials and foreign-service officers who stepped forward to testify against him.

    A person who was close to Trump’s legal team during the Russia probe told Insider the cascade of witness testimony, more than anything else, grated on the president’s nerves.

    “He’s called them Never Trumpers, but these people worked for him, and some still do,” the person said. “For a man who puts personal loyalty above everything else, this was something he never saw coming. He couldn’t stop them, so he decided to smear them, but at the end of the day, all he could do is sit back and watch it happen.”

    The person added: “And as long as those articles of impeachment sit in Nancy Pelosi’s hands, Trump is powerless.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s