The House of Representatives have impeached the president. Maybe.
Yes, the House passed the Articles of Impeachment, but the Speaker of the House has not sent the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, and hasn’t said when she will. Or if she will. The New York Times is reporting that she’s holding them as a bargaining chip.
So, if impeachment is akin to indictment, that would be like you being indicted, but never scheduled for trial, because the grand jury wants to hold off on getting what it wants during the actual trial.
That’s not how it works. But then, when have Democrats ever cared about doing things right.
Of course, as silly as all that is, I’m really looking forward to when the Speaker of the House has to send the invitation to President Trump to give the State of the Union address.
That should be fun. That should be real fun.
Of course, right now, I’m not sure just how that will go. What do you think? How will that work?
Does this violate the right to a speedy trial?
He’s a Republican president. He has no rights.
He’s a Republican president. He
hasdeserves no rights.That’s funny. But you know there are actually some people so damaged in the head that they do actually think like that. Satire is so hard these days.
Yeah, I wish somebody would hurry up and create the universally accepted sarcasm font to avoid misunderstandings. With the downvotes, it looks like either people think I’m a moonbat troll or the joke is just not as good as I thought.
Wow! That’s a lot of down-votes! I can only guess that they thought you were a troll being serious.
Truth be told, I couldn’t type the phrase myself. I had to get the mailman to type it for me. He drives a Prius, so I figured he’d be happy to oblige.
Yeah, I agree that some thought you were serious, based on those downvotes. You’re right, there does need to be a universal indicator of some kind. We need to work on that.
[sarc]test 1[/sarc]
Yeah.
“when the Speaker of the House has to send the invitation to President Trump to give the State of the Union address.”
It’ll be different this year. I’m not sure how, but it’ll be different.
(a) There’s no requirement that the president deliver the speech physically in the House. He may come up with an alternative, regardless of Nancy’s invitation or lack of invitation.
(b) Pelosi will be sorely tempted to use the occasion to score political points — saying in her letter, “despite tradition, it would be inappropriate for an impeached president to speak to the House,” etc.
(c) But she’ll probably be even more tempted to get him to appear on her turf, so she can have members boycott, not stand up, not applaud, wear clown suits, arrest him, whatever.
Of course, Clinton was impeached 19 December 1998, the Senate trial started 7 January 1999, and the State of the Union address was 19 January 1999, while the trial was underway. Clinton was acquitted 12 February 1999.
So, yeah, she may well say that, but tradition says otherwise.
By the way, Andrew Johnson delivered his State of the Union addresses in December, and his impeachment was in February
19681868, so it didn’t come into play.1968? Wrong Johnson. 🙂
Whoopsie! Fixed.
And if you ever had your Whoopsie fixed you know how painful that can be.
Having your Johnson fixed is becoming more popular, though…
I haven’t seen it totally explored yet but there is some speculation that Pelosi might even hold off on submitting the Bill until AFTER the 2020 elections to see if she might get a Democrat Senate to conduct the trial. Normally any bill passed by the House and NOT submitted by the end of session must be reintroduced in the new session. The question would be if the impeachment bill would fall under those rules or not. I am sure more knowledgeable people will endeavor to figure that out. Right now there is a genuine question as to whether he is impeached or not since the process is not complete. Talk about your political hot stove league debates!
Still I can’t see how any of these delays help the Democrats either get him convicted in the Senate, rig the process to their favor or help them survive the 2020 elections. Who advises them on these matters?
sitting on it and using it as a campaign tool to try to win a Senate majority to remove Trump after he’s reelected is the only card left to play.
It’s not a very strong card.
It’s like trying to win a poker hand by holding out for the instruction card.
Probably won’t work. Saw somewhere that the Senate has the power to demand bills be sent to them in a timely manner, give a deadline for them and then declare them dismissed if not received for the Senate’s consideration. Plus you got the fact that even one of the “Experts” called by Nadler on impeachment says that it is a process and is not officially complete until sent to the Senate for trial.
Well like I said…it’s not a very good move, but it’s kind of the only one they got left. Next up is losing bigtime in 2020 and getting frog-marched off to prison for attempting to overthrow the government.
Better yet, let’s just turn DC into a giant prison and leave them right where they are. I think I saw that in a movie once. Kurt Russel was in it.
Trump will be invited to speak but only if he agrees to wear a strait jacket, a hood and leg chains.
and say, “Good evening Clarice”?
impeachment is a joke. It has never been used for its intended purpose – removing a president that is dangerous to the country. it has always been used as nothing more as a parliamentary maneuver equivalent of throwing a tantrum when the side in power doesn’t get its way.
Ken Starr didn’t do us any favors when he decided to pursue the whole Monica Lewinsky thing (which was easy) and totally forget the original intent of the investigation which was Clinton selling influence to foreign countries via the Clinton Foundation (which was hard)….which they continued to do for another 30 years.
nobody cares. the supporters of the impeached president are still his supporters. They’re probably pissed off and more energized now.
I’ve never in my life donated money to a presidential campaign. I was a Ted Cruz guy in the primary and wasn’t very happy to vote for Trump, but now I’m donating to a presidential campaign for the first time in my entire life.
I don’t think impeachment is working.
I’ve never donated money to a campaign either, because it’s not entirely clear to me where the money goes:
Administrative salaries?
Travel?
Meals?
Go pound sand. Unless I get some say in those line items.
Signs?
Print ads?
Direct mailings?
TV ads?
Door-to-door canvassing volunteers (pizzas and gas money)?
These probably have negiligible effect on anyone who’s made up their mind. All of them are sucky and irritating.
TV ads are the ones most likely to attract supporters: “Look — the Dems have an ad every commercial break. We need to counter them!”
Well, I don’t watch TV commercials, and no one should.
And those who do tune them out after the first or second viewing, and find them increasingly annoying thereafter, having perhaps a negative effect.
But what about using the money for graft and corruption? (To whoever is needed: “Look, I have a war chest of $400 million — you could have a piece of it if you play ball.”)
Not with my money.
Some does go for voter registration which is the first step for any GOTV initiatives. Maybe a lot gets “wasted” but some does have a positive effect for a candidate. Which is probably why the guy with the most money to spend wins most elections. Not always true but, well, there it is.
I think in Trump’s case…legal fees?
production of red ball caps?
Pingback: IMAO