Why isn’t Pelosi sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate?

TPD

the poor dad
Because they haven’t figured out what they are going after Trump for next month. Once they figure out their next Trump crisis that they can whine about, they will send the articles over. It will probably be when Trump declares that he is the real Santa.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Because she knows she poohed the scrooch and the Senate is getting ready to hammer home their foolishness. She's buying time until somebody can figure out what to do.
 
Reactions: BOP

Stjohns3269

Active Member
There is a problem with one of the jurors. He announced publicly prior to the start of the trial he is not impartial.
So she is working to ensure that the trial is fair.

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” he said. “I’m not impartial about this at all.”
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I figure the heat in a Senate trial is a bit too hot for them.
They can say he was impeached without presenting it to the senate and that is their goal.
They knew from the beginning that the Senate would toss it out.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
There is a problem with one of the jurors. He announced publicly prior to the start of the trial he is not impartial.
So she is working to ensure that the trial is fair.

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” he said. “I’m not impartial about this at all.”
That continues to not be Pelosi's purview to determine.

As you've repeatedly said, this is not a criminal trial, it's political.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
I think this impeachment farce is similar to the passing of Obamacare. You know, when Pelosi said the bill has been passed, so, now, we will read what is in it. Another, oh shiat moment. Why won’t they send the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate; licketysplit? Ain’t Gov grand. God bless the USA. :patriot:
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
There is a problem with one of the jurors. He announced publicly prior to the start of the trial he is not impartial.
So she is working to ensure that the trial is fair.

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” he said. “I’m not impartial about this at all.”
So when did judicial jurisprudence come into play?
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
So she is working to ensure that the trial is fair.
Define what you think she would consider "fair".

Face it, no one is going to be impartial in this fiasco. Certainly, almost no one in the House was impartial on either side of the aisle. So, Mitch announce how he stands is not really news, its just out there in case some didn't really know where he stood on the idea.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
They are feverishly trying to figure out how they can go to court to force the Senate to hold the trial according to their liking. You know, only call the witnesses they want to get called, NOT call the witnesses the other side wants to hear from. Basic cangaroo court kind of stuff.







The quicker this is over, the better. Mitch shouldn't even give them the satisfaction of a drawn out trial. House manager gets an hour to present his case, Trump lawyer moves for summary judgement, senate holds a vote, impeachment is over.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
They are feverishly trying to figure out how they can go to court to force the Senate to hold the trial according to their liking. You know, only call the witnesses they want to get called, NOT call the witnesses the other side wants to hear from. Basic cangaroo court kind of stuff.

The quicker this is over, the better. Mitch shouldn't even give them the satisfaction of a drawn out trial. House manager gets an hour to present his case, Trump lawyer moves for summary judgement, senate holds a vote, impeachment is over.
It’s not going to work that way. They will continue their power hungry goal for control. The progeny of the Klu Klux Klan is trying to burn everything down. Socialism/Communism is on the horizon, unless true patriots get out to vote. Come on, y’all. Do it! :patriot:
 
Reactions: BOP

officeguy

Well-Known Member
There is a problem with one of the jurors.
Let me stop you right there. For the past couple of weeks our democrat luminaries have been telling us that :
  • impeachment is not a judicial process,
  • that no violation of law has to occur for something to be impeachable
  • that the executive was to answer the houses subpoenas without the courts having a say in the matter.
Etc.

So it is entirely disingenuous to now demand that the senators act as 'impartial jurors'. They are not jurors, they are politicians elected in a partisan election process. The impeachment is a political process. If you have control of the legislature, you can remove a president you don't like. The house democrats certainly acted as political hacks, can't be too suprised if the republican senators link their position on the impeachment to their politics.

Had the house impeached Trump based on an actual violation of law (on or about 7/25/2019 Donald J Trump violated xx USC yyyy by doing thisandtheother), there would be a case to call for an impartial jury to decide whether that was in fact the case. But they didn't do that.
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
Let me stop you right there. For the past couple of weeks our democrat luminaries have been telling us that :
  • impeachment is not a judicial process,
  • that no violation of law has to occur for something to be impeachable
  • that the executive was to answer the houses subpoenas without the courts having a say in the matter.
Etc.

So it is entirely disingenuous to now demand that the senators act as 'impartial jurors'. They are not jurors, they are politicians elected in a partisan election process. The impeachment is a political process. If you have control of the legislature, you can remove a president you don't like. The house democrats certainly acted as political hacks, can't be too suprised if the republican senators link their position on the impeachment to their politics.

Had the house impeached Trump based on an actual violation of law (on or about 7/25/2019 Donald J Trump violated xx USC yyyy by doing thisandtheother), there would be a case to call for an impartial jury to decide whether that was in fact the case. But they didn't do that.
Excellent understanding of it all. Have you ever considered running for ‘office’? That was a pun, but I am serious. :)
 

Pete

Repete
Because she knows she poohed the scrooch and the Senate is getting ready to hammer home their foolishness. She's buying time until somebody can figure out what to do.
She is going to stall until the 2020 elections in hopes that if Trump wins they can gain seats in the Senate and then send it hoping they can remove him. Of course the flaw in that logic is that he will have won re-election and then her garbage is truly a coup.
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
There is a problem with one of the jurors. He announced publicly prior to the start of the trial he is not impartial.
So she is working to ensure that the trial is fair.

“I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” he said. “I’m not impartial about this at all.”
Hey toad, put down the pipe......
 

Stjohns3269

Active Member
You people really are parrots. You all just say the same thing Fox and the GOP tell you to say,

It's so boring because none of you have an original idea in your heads.

You can't announce prior to a trial how you are going to vote before any evidence is presented not matter whether it is a civil, criminal or impeachment trial.

And no calling for impeachment is not the same as that is calling for an investigation. ( since that will be your next talking point)
 
Top