Academia, Congress, Constitutional Law

Trump Stands Impeached: A Response To Noah Feldman

In the House Judiciary Committee, I had some fundamental disagreements with my friend Professor Noah Feldman on issues ranging from the basis for impeachment on the basis of specific crimes (bribery, extortion, campaign finance violations, and obstruction of justice) as well as his claim that the legal definition of these crimes are immaterial to their use in impeachment. Ultimately, the Judiciary Committee dropped those four theories and went forward with the two articles that I testified would be legitimate, if proven: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Now, however, we have another disagreement. Feldman has written in Bloomberg News that Trump is not actually impeached until the articles of impeachment are transferred to the Senate. I disagree and believe that Feldman is conflating provisions concerning removal with those for impeachment. Frankly, I am mystified by the claim since I see no credible basis for maintaining this view under either the text or the history of the Constitution.

Five provisions are material to impeachment cases, and therefore structure our analysis:

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. U.S. Const. art. I, cl. 8.

Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 6.

Article I, Section 3: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to the Law. U.S. Const. art. I, 3, cl. 7.

Article II, Section 2: [The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. U.S. Const., art. II, 2, cl. 1.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, 4.

Under these provisions, President Donald J. Trump was impeached on December 18th at 8:09 p.m.  Article I Section 2 says that the House “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act. Impeachment occurs when a majority of the House approves an article of impeachment. 

Section 3 gives the “sole power to try all impeachments” to the Senate.  For such a trial to occur, the Senate is officially informed of the articles of impeachment by the House. One can argue that without such a referral, the Senate would not take up the impeachment.  Indeed, as I stated in my testimony, English precedent includes the power of the House of Lords not to take up impeachments.  The majority of impeachments were not taken up by the House of Lords because they were viewed as raw political exercises. That is not our tradition. 

A common analogy is often drawn to federal indictments by a grand jury. Though this analogy can be overstated, on this point, there is a telling distinction between the indictment and trial stages. If the grand jury decides the evidence presented establishes probable cause, it issues an indictment . As with the House in an impeachment, a majority of the grand jury (16 of 23 members) must vote for indictment, which is then called a true bill. The submission to a federal court in an arraignment is to allow a defendant to plead guilt or innocence. If an indictment is not submitted, there can be no trial or conviction. Moreover, there is a time limit as there is in an impeachment with statutes of limitations and other limits on the life of an indictment. If a House does not submit articles of impeachment to the Senate, those articles will die with that Congress. Like indictments, the limit is on the ability to prosecute or try the articles of impeachment.

Where Noah and I agree is that this use of the articles as a bargaining chip is a departure from tradition and undermines the integrity of the process.  It also contradicts the Democratic narrative that the House could not wait because this is a “crime in progress.”  I argued that a little more time could greatly enhance this record.  Now, having adopted articles of impeachment on a facially incomplete and insufficient record, the House suddenly has ample time to toy with the Senate on the transferral of the articles for trial. 

Yet, on the issue of impeachment, that was established with the adoption of Article 1 on the abuse of power. President Trump stands impeached as clearly defined under Article 1 of the Constitution.

262 thoughts on “Trump Stands Impeached: A Response To Noah Feldman”

  1. You possibly could have merit in your belief if such crooks as Pelosi weren’t in the procedural part of this impeachment. However with her in control, I see her using it to try to rise over a grave mistake she realized too late she was making.

  2. During the whole process in the house of representatives the Democrats repealed the fifth amendment to the constitution.
    Now they are trying to repeal the sixth amendment to the constitution.
    They flexed their muscles in the house of representatives and now they are trying to dictate to the senate how it should control it process.
    They are using the articles as a means of extortion. An imminent threat suddenly becomes non-imminent after they impeached the president based on comparative strength of parties rather than real demonstration of innocence or guilt.
    The transmission of articles before a trial is only based on senate rules which can be changed to call the speaker a bluff.
    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is the most effective Senate Leader since Lydon B Johnson. Pelosi can never extort him and he will never fall for her demands.
    The senate has the sole power to try all impeachments, therefore how the process goes should only be discussed among the senators and the speaker has no business in this.
    Just like other defendants the president deserves a day in court and he must not be denied a day in court.
    Bottom line, the constitution is silent on many things when it comes to the process of getting to the touchdown zone, there the president stands impeached.

  3. I disagree with Turley,

    Like any contract, until it is signed by both parties it is not a valid contract. Neither is an unprocessed House Bill. And that is what an impeachment is, a House bill. Personally I think Pelosi just used it to Harass Trump. She knew that the lunitics under her would go nuts and she sat back and laughed at it as though it was a big joke. But let me say this. When the GOP takes back the House, she should be the first person they impeach along with her three stooges who ran the committees.

  4. the democrats can do what they want. they planned this process years ago. I have every intention of voting for President Trump again.

  5. RE: “A common analogy is often drawn to federal indictments by a grand jury. Though this analogy can be overstated, on this point, there is a telling distinction between the indictment and trial stages.”
    The analogy has limited utility. For one thing, the grand jury and the trial court are part of the same branch of government. The House and Senate are separate entities within the legislative branch, but they have separate responsibilities.

    RE: “If the grand jury decides the evidence presented establishes probable cause, it issues an indictment . As with the House in an impeachment, a majority of the grand jury (16 of 23 members) must vote for indictment, which is then called a true bill.”
    While the actions of grand juries can be secret, actions by the House on impeachment are public votes.

    RE: “The submission to a federal court in an arraignment is to allow a defendant to plead guilt or innocence.”
    Which is a basic reason why withholding the articles of impeachment cannot be allowed: the President is entitled to an opportunity to answer the charges against him.

    RE: “If an indictment is not submitted, there can be no trial or conviction.”
    Except that the Senate has the sole power to try the articles of impeachment. Once the House has spoken — by public vote — the matter is decided, and trial should move to the Senate. The Senate could take up the matter immediately. I don’t see anything about the House submitting articles of impeachment in the Constitution or the Federalist papers.

    ——–

    My issues with this are:
    (1) As stated above: the President is being denied due process, including the right to answer charges. [Did the Sixth Amendment get repealed?]
    (2) Consider this hypothetical: (a) The House impeaches a president. (b) The Senate is expected to remove the president. (c) The Speaker is a personal friend of the president. (d) To protect a friend, the Speaker fails to forward the articles of impeachment to prevent a trial in the Senate. How is that legal or constitutional?
    (3) Where does Speaker Pelosi has the authority to do this? The irony is that the House has impeached a president for (1) failure “in his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and (2) obstructing Congress. By delaying turning over the articles of impeachment, Pelosi is: (1) failing in her constitutional duty ensure that a basic function of the Constitution is faithfully executed and (2) obstructing Congress using authority she doesn’t have.

    1. rcatsby — The Senate is not required to offer the President any opportunity to defend himself; there is no “due process” provision. All that is required is a vote on conviction.

      1. The word “trial” indicates that the provision in the Constitution about the Senate’s role after Impeachment is to hear from both sides.
        An adversarial procedure, a “trial”. That involves presentation of evidence to support the allegations in the Aticles of Impeachment, and presenting a defense against those allegations.

      2. “Sole power to try all impeachment “. You can’t conduct a trial without hearing from both sides, applying due process and applying the federal rules of evidence.

        1. Paul Olotu – there is one SC case on impeachment named after Nixon (not the President) which is the only SC case on a trial by the Senate. Basically, the court says as long as it follows the Constitution, the Senate can do what the hell it wants.

          1. And when it wants. And the Senate can change the rules for its own process. So Mitch could set the date for Christmas day, and if the House isn’t ready, dismiss the csse.

            1. Orin R. Armstrong – Under the current Rules of the Senate, the House has 30 days to get the impeachment papers to them or it dies. Tik, tok, Nancy.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – every bar will be a science lab.

  7. “The problem with ‘self-combusting manure’ is that it keeps getting voted in.”

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – since you taught at an ag school, you would know all about “self-combusting manure.” Must have had hundreds of tons of it at WSU.

  8. The Democrats have, unfortunately successfully, managed to damage the clearly expressed will of the people for almost the full term of the man the people chose to implement the change the people wanted. In my opinion this is one of the most egregious abuses of power and a direct rejection of our democratic traditions. It is actually an assault upon democracy to use such a narrow margin of political power to thwart the people but then that seems to be the modus operandi of the current left wing soaked Democrat party. This is the action of authoritarians and ideologues and is antithetical to the American idea.
    Either the current iteration of the democrat party dies or American republicanism dies. Both will not exist together for long.

      1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – And the Electoral College trumps the plurality vote.

      2. the she should have run for governor of a state. any state. they win by majorities. Presidential elections are won by electoral votes from each state.

      3. Sure. And the Conservative Party of Canada won the popular vote this time around, yet we’re still stuck with the Liberal Party’s Justin “Blackie McBlackface” Trudeau as our prime minister.

        Who, I might add, demoted an indigenous woman from her position as Minister of Justice/Attorney General because she refused to hold down our constitution so he could have his wicked way with it.

        He pressured her to improperly, retroactively apply a recently passed law in order to defer a corruption and bribery prosecution against a major multinational corporation that just *happened* to be headquartered in the city where he was about to run for reelection.

        When she balked at the legal dubiousness (and obvious appearance of impropriety) of such an act and told him no, he removed her from her position and assigned her a much less prestigious and influential one.

        Imagine, firing someone who refused to break the law for your personal, political gain, and then ending up right back in the PM’s office after the next election.

        What a crazy world we live in…

    2. Not being able to remain half slave and half free comes to mind in a similar state of division as you describe.

  9. “That is not our tradition.” Show us, Turkey, any evidence of tradition in this partisan shampeachment.

      1. Uh, yeah. I’m guessing when that happened, the impeaching body followed some type of rational and fair process based in the constitution and precedent.

        You fill me in, when in the past did the House vote to impeach a president, throw an empty bag into the Senate, and demand, “you guys fill it for us”?

      2. It looks like there have been 15 federal judges impeached, out of thousands that have been on the bench.
        That’s a “tradition”?

  10. Pelosi might never bring the articles to the Senate. Doing so would give Trump an opportunity to clear his name (again.) She wants him weakened for 2020.

    If Trump wins in 2020, but Democrats take the Senate, you can bet she’ll bring them then.

    Vote responsibly in 2020. Do not encourage this lawless behavior with your vote.

      2. Cute but juvenile sloganeering. Vegas odds say you’ve got five more years of President Trump in your future. Therefore, I recommend you move straight to the acceptance phase of grieving and get on with your life.

  11. We see a continuation of the abuse of power of Democrats in Congress. Now, Nancy Pelosi is holding up the bill that would send impeachment to the Senate for trial.

    This was never about justice. This was dirty political trench warfare to try to oust a duly elected President or wound him for reelection with false allegations.

    The House does not control the Senate. The House had the power to impeach a president. That is their purview. Now the Senate has its won powers and responsibilities. But the Democrat House wants to control the Republican Senate. She is withholding the articles of impeachment until and unless the Senate satisfies her that it will proceed as she dictates. That is not how the legislative branch works, and is a further abuse of power.

    Trump wants a speedy trial because the evidence exonerates him. The only way investigating Biden would be an abuse of power for political purposes would be if there was no reason a reasonable person would suspect wrongdoing. Their own witnesses agreed on Biden’s wrongdoing. So Trump would love to shine a spotlight on the Biden affairs, which would quite obviously justify investigating it, and render clear that Democrats are obstructing that investigation and threatening those involved with it. The impeachment is punishment for investigating their candidate, a rank hypocrisy considering they investigated Trump the candidate and Trump the president.

    There are Republicans in Congress like Graham who don’t want to use the impeachment trial to highlight Democrat wrongs such as Biden’s scandal. They want to focus on the facts that the evidence does not support impeachment, and deal with the myriad Democrat scandals in their own venue.

    This will be a tactical error, in my opinion on the periphery. Democrats have used impeachment to wound Trump and all Republicans running for office in 2020. The Biden scandal is the seed that started this impeachment, and is relevant. We should take this opportunity to explain to the public, which gets its news from the MSM, what the Bidens did in Ukraine, and why Trump wanted to investigate them. Then, these prospective voters, especially independent voters, will look at Democrat behavior in a more honest light.

    When the evidence exonerates Trump, Democrats will parrot it was an unfair trial, like they’ve claimed Trump was working with the Russians long after that accusation fell apart. This will be the latest false allegation heaped upon voters just prior to 2020. They will lie and say that Trump would have been impeached if it was a fair process, and they will not discuss the evidence.

    For instance, I hear Democrats harping on about the “whistleblower.” He was not present for the Ukraine telephone call, and misrepresented it in his complaint. The FBI changed its guidelines to allow second hand information, and then backdated it, expressly so this “whistleblower” activist could strike out at the president. They will keep repeating his assertions, and not admit that it did not reflect the actual transcript. They will repeat Sondland claiming there was a quid pro quo, and not mention that Sondland admitted under oath that he made the whole thing up because he did not understand why aid was delayed. They will not mention Taylor admitting that Ukraine knew nothing about any quid pro quo until the Politico article. They won’t admit that Hill made a false statement against Republicans in her opening testimony. If any statement deserved 20 minutes of GOOGLING for accuracy prior to making, it would be a declaration before the globe. But she’d “heard” this false statement, and repeated it to Congress. She “heard” other false statements, as well, that all fell apart under questioning.

    Those who get their news from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or any of the other Democrat propaganda sites will not hear this information. We have to reach them. However, it may be a moot point. Brainwashing is resistant to truth.

    1. The Donald has started that he can do anything he wants as president. Which indicates that the oath of office went in one ear and out another orifice. It appears that he abused his power but certainly obstructed the House of Representatives.

      Dump Trump. He is not fit to be president. Over 500 constitutional law professors say so. Over 700 historians say so. Over 2000 mental health professionals say so.

      2. Dump Trump. He is not fit to be president. Over 500 constitutional law professors say so. Over 700 historians say so. Over 2000 mental health professionals say so.

        It’s indicative of your mental decline that you take nonsense memes like this seriously.

      3. So those 3200 opinions matter more than the opinions of the 62 million people who voted for Trump. People knew what he was. They knew about his problems. Yet they preferred him to Clinton.

        1. The plurality vote was for Clinton. Only a fluke of the electoral college resulted in Trump in the White House.

          1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after fifty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. David, David, David. It was not a fluke. The Donald played the Electoral College much better than Hillary.

      4. Trump did not, IN CONTEXT, say he could do anything he wants as Pesident. The comment was specific to hiring and firing people serving in the executive branch. Folks on the left seem to have a very hard time with listening to a complete idea. They sometimes shut down mid-sentence to pick out the quote they want to use as a cudgel.

        1. First Rule of TDS: Always take Trump literally, never take him seriously.

          Second Rule of TDS: When in doubt, make stuff up.

      5. “Over 500 constitutional law professors say so.”

        David learn to read properly and learn to count.

        It was over 500 lawyers whether or not they are practicing or ever practiced law not constitutional law professors. But David that means about 1.3 million didn’t say that and had the opportunity to do so. Don’t you think 500 is a rather small number and most probably represents a lot of small people?

    2. “That is not how the legislative branch works, and is a further abuse of power.”

      Abusing the power of her office to extort an improper quid pro quo for political gain.

      I’m not going to say that only Democrats are hypocrites, but they sure are on a roll these days.

  12. The Constitution of the United States has been disemboweled. The issue is not some misconduct by the President but rather an audacious, egregious encroachment by the Legislature on the prerogatives of the Executive and the Judiciary.

    The House of Representatives took issue with the content of a discussion between the President and a foreign sovereign, in which The President is granted plenary powers by the Constitution. In the normal course of our politics this is a matter for the voters or litigation before the Judicial branch. By voting to impeach the President the Congress has not only caused a national crisis but has also effectively blocked the Judiciary from its constitutional role as arbiter in conflicts between the Legislative and Executive.

    It matters not what happens next, trial or no, conviction or no. The Congress has established a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of the President, effectively a veto over any actions he takes, whether foreign or domestic. The Constitution is dead.

    1. Could not agree more, and that must be remedied or impeachment could become routine. Like tons of actions taken in the first days of every new Congress, the party in power could simply vote to impeach and the Speaker can keep it in her pocket until the “time is right”.

      This is an abuse of power like no other. The Court should sort this out now, even though it is loathe to get involved. Otherwise, it potentially, alters in a fundamental way the power structure under which the nation has operated for many years.

    2. Though I too fear the abuse of any power by officials both elected & appointed, I disagree with the characterization in your comment. There has never been another President in our history, nor will there ever be another President in the future, who has so brazenly used the power of his high office with such disregard for the public interests and for advancing his own interests by inviting/asking/demanding (take your pick) interfering in our sacred election system. The more pressing historical worry should be what happens if we weaken our protections against such behavior by allowing it to pass with zero consequences.

    2. There are many cultures around the world where people throw their trash on the ground, including Bali and Senegal. Most plastic waste in the oceans come from Asia.

      We can scoop up as much as we can, but as long as other countries keep dumping it in the ocean, it’s a losing battle. Plus, Asia does not accept much of our plastic waste anymore. Cleaning up Asian, Caribbean, and African plastic trash then leaves us with a bunch of plastic trash. We used to use China to create recycled plastic pellets that our own manufacturers can turn into products. This process pollutes, however, and it’s expensive. China has stopped accepting recycled plastic raw materials now.

      This is a conundrum. First and foremost, we need the cultures of the rest of the world to change its attitudes towards trash, garbage, and other waste.

      https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/what_i_learned_in_peace_corps_in_africa_trump_is_right.html

    3. Did you get a chance to read the Brad Lancaster books? I admire his work. I also have a few recommendations on cisterns and ollas, if you are looking at a local, micro scale.

  15. You are splitting hairs. What difference does it make if it’s a non-impeachmrnt due to non-ransmittal, or a moot impeachment due to non-ransmittal?

  16. The left has done us a great favor by impeaching Trump. They did it to satisfy their infantile, narcissistic urges without realizing that they just handed us the election! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  17. I beg to differ with Prof. Turley. I will compare impeachment with an indictment. As a prosecutor, you prepare an indictment (charge) against a defendant. That indictment must be filed with the Criminal Court for it to be an indictment. If it is put in a drawer and never filed with the Court, it is merely a piece of paper. My opinion is that an impeachment, unfiled with the Senate is no different.
    Of course, one could argue that the impeachment was voted on by the House and as such is an impeachment. I agree with that, but again I go back to the indictment. If it was approved by one or more Prosecutors, but never filed is it still an indictment, I say no, unless filed with the Criminal Court, it is merely a piece of paper with no meaning at all. If the mere preparation of criminal charges against a Defendant, were sufficient to presume someone guilty, with no way of proving oneself innocent, that would turn the justice system on its head and could not stand.
    If the House does not deliver the so called “impeachment” to the Senate, the issue of whether the President was officially impeached or not, will be debated by Constitutional scholars for ages to come.

    1. I work in real estate where documents may be properly signed, dated, and witnessed, but are not valid until delivered. America is fortunate to have Professor Jonathan Turley.. The Founders had limited means of communication. The occurrence of an event was not truly known until communication was delivered. The Senate could not act on word of mouth, and there was no email or television, so delivery was a requirement of Impeachment.

    2. I agree. Adopting anything less as a universal rule would condone and encourage impeachment proceedings for the sake of smearing the president alone.

  18. The American people did not get all of the crimes and misdeeds of Nixon until he left office. Waiting to find out about the crimes and misdeeds of Trump cannot wait, there is a “crime in progress” every minute of his embrace of authoritarian rule.

    1. to find out about the crimes and misdeeds of Trump cannot wait, there is a “crime in progress”
      __________________________________________________

      That is really a very foolish claim.
      This whole business that the Whistle Blower interrupted a “crime in progress” is profoundly illogical .

      Let’s imagine that so-called “crime” had not been exposed before
      it was completed. So here is what it would look like:
      Military aid to Ukraine was delayed for a couple months and then the Ukraine announces a phony investigation of the Bidens and then military aid is released. Does anybody in their right mind believe that scenario would benefit Donald Trump?

      If the so-called crime had been allowed to proceed it would look like Trump was caught red-handed extorting another nation for his own personal gain. Nobody would be trying to claim there was “no quid pro quo” or arguing intent.

      I realize that, many people want to believe Trump is a drooling imbecile, but c’mon folks he is smarter than that. The whole premise of the “crime” that Trump is accused of is totally absurd.

      So of course this brings us to the obvious question :
      If Trump was not trying to twist Ukraine’s arm to get an announcement of an investigation of Biden – What was he up to?

      1. Allowing Putin to be in every inch of Ukraine…. Gas and oil contracts. Oh, it would be Putin’s Ukraine alright, but a little carved out for Trump. Maybe a new Trump tower in Ukraine on the Black Sea.

          1. NOTE: Will blank is more than likely Estovir, our in-house Catholic homophobe who is probably 5:5 and 140. But he is super tough on the internet where he can smear people to his heart’s content without ever getting punched. Funny how that goes. On public forums like this even the most cowardly wimps can act as tough as they want.

        2. Fishwings,
          Putin gobbled up Crimea, and established a presence in Eastern Ukraine under Trump?
          If you look at Putin’s expansionism, it occured in the last administration, not this one.

          1. Fishwings,
            I forgot to mention Putin’s invasion and land grab in Georgia.
            Every advance by Putin against former Soviet Bloc countries happened before Trump took office.

      2. Jinn, why won’t McConnell allow testimony from Bolton, Mulvaney and Blair? I mean, if ‘no crime occurred’, what’s the problem?

        1. if ‘no crime occurred’, what’s the problem?
          _______________________________________

          There would be no problem at all for Trump. It would be a huge victory. It would also mean that Trump has been playing games and withholding exculpatory evidence for months just to tease this process along so that the trap can be sprung when it has the most favorable political impact.

          Pelosi is wise not to step into that possible trap.

          There is nothing to be gained by ever allowing the articles to be transmitted to the Senate. In the Senate if there is additional incriminating evidence it won’t come out, but if there is exculpatory evidence it will. It’s a heads you win and tails I lose proposition for Pelosi.

        2. Phillip,
          Why should McConnell subpeona those people if the House didn’t bother to enforce their subpeonas?

        3. Peter – McConnell wants to use the Clinton trial model where no witnesses were called in public.

          1. PCS, Don’t you think Mr. Shill is going to lose his enviable position on the Turley Blog most comments list by continuing to morph his nom de plume?

            1. George – when the counter turns over, I think JT only counts the last 1000 or so comments, maybe a lot less. There is no way to know. 😉

              1. Mr. Schulte,
                I think that the contributions of all of the different personalities of Phillip/ Peter/ Shill/ PH/ Acland/ Burgoyne/ Hill, etc. should be credited as one

        4. Ah so it really was about skipping the litigation brought before house subpoena. You libsoc psychos want to ignore due process

        5. That excuse was used for the Special Prosecutor and everything was provided but there is no end to the Peter Shills. They latch onto a whistleblower but Trump releases a transcript of the call. Again there is no end to the Peter Shill shenanigans. Harrassment is what we are seeing so rightfully Trump has put the issue to the courts which is exactly where disputes between the executive and legislative branches go.

          Democrats and Peter Shill hate the Constitution because it stops them from becoming dictators.

    3. “Waiting to find out about the crimes and misdeeds of Trump cannot wait…”

      While waiting we are finding plenty of “crimes and misdeeds” of Trump we are daily finding more and more “crimes and misdeeds” of Obama but so far none of Trump.

  19. TRUMP is being FIRED. Impeachment is just a more formal way of saying: “your performance is unsatisfactory, Orange Muffin Man. YOU’RE FIRED.”

      1. MOPY messy

        Trying to equate Traitor Trump with the Pope? Orange traitor would love knowing that he has followers who are as faithful to him as Catholics are to
        the pedophile protector at the Vatican. Worshiping an idol is…idoloatry.

        1. silly:
          “Trying to equate Traitor Trump with the Pope? Orange traitor would love knowing that he has followers who are as faithful to him as Catholics are to
          the pedophile protector at the Vatican. Worshiping an idol is…idoloatry.”
          ****************
          This Pope isn’t even Catholic. Oh, and an idol is a thing not a person. But no matter, rant on, brother. It’s funny.

          1. YES, Messy.

            It IS funny. The POPE is a Billy Graham Baptist – but he’s just as corrupt as your Dear Leader.

          2. Mespo,
            Prof. Josh Backman cites a Senate rule that the House has 30 days to deliver the Articles of Impeacemt to the Senate.
            If they don’t receive them in that time frame, he said the rule states that the one impeached will essentially be acquitted.
            This is in the Dec. 19 edition of “Reason”, an online newsletter.
            My cut and paste stopped working and now I’m also unable to forward links.
            But the article is fairly short and gets into Senate rules and other areas.

            2. “Now, consider another Senate rule: if the House of Representatives approves an article of impeachment, but fails to transmit that article within thirty days, the Senate shall treat the article as dismissed for lack of prosecution, and the impeached official shall be deemed acquitted”
              Professor Josh Blackman, from Reason, December 19th

        2. bill mcwilliams – I think the analogy with the pope is apt. Popes are elected by electors, not the church as a whole. There are religious divisions within the church and electors, as well as the congregation.

          1. Well, except the congregation do not elect the cardinals who elect the Pope. The white smoke is in no way connected to the congregation.

            The current pope appoints the cardinals from among the bishops. If I recall correctly, the pope points the bishops, too, although it is a very long process to become a candidate.

            So, in a way, the lineage of popes themselves choose those who will name their successor.

            1. Karen S – technically, the elected Pope does not have to be a priest when elected. And they never have to be a cardinal. However, current tradition requires them to be elected from the cardinals in the convocation. Still, it is not a requirement. You have to be male and Catholic. Cardinals need to be male and Catholic, not bishops first. Currently, all cardinals have been at least bishops, if not archbishops.

    3. No, Bill. The trial would determine that.

      Right now, we have false allegations that put him under review. Kind of like if someone made up stories about you at work to try to get you fired, and HR refused to allow exonerating evidence to count. Now, it’s up to the hiring manager to determine if they will look at the evidence, or just believe the people out to get you.

      May justice prevail.

    4. Bill, why would anyone want to fire the one who has done so much for the county. I’ll start with the economy. Do you prefer the economy to go in the opposite direction?

    5. Bill mcW,.
      If he’s “fired”, why is he still the president? Did Pelosi forget to relay that notice of termination to Trump?
      Us this more “strategic stalling” by her?

  20. Donald Traitor Trump, the erstwhile 2nd President of the Confederacy, stands for all time as Impeached. The Racist Rapist Grifter is Impeached. Period.

    1. The Senate may never take up the House action if the House does not transmit the notice properly.

      Then, Trump wins 40 states in November and is POTUS for 4 more years and gets to shape the SCOTUS for the next 20 years.

      The House votes dies when the new House is sworn in.

      And, DJT has a double asterisk by his name for the House vote, but no trial in the Senate.

      To Trump, he has won bigly and the impeachment farce is just that.

      And, Hunter Biden goes to jail. As does Slow Joe. And, Pelosi’s son.

      1. I thought Hillary Clinton was going to face justice at last with a Republican Congress and President, but she squirmed away again. You never know.

    3. Thanks for sharing your moon barking lunacy with the rest of us. It’s simply…breathtaking.

Comments are closed.