News that I missed, courtesy of The Babylon Bee:
U.S.—An echo was heard across the land this morning from sea to shining sea as progressives woke up after celebrating Impeachment Day and learned that Trump is still the president.
High off their impeachment victory, liberals went to bed safe and secure in the knowledge that Trump was defeated, his evil vanquished from the land at last. But when they woke up, they realized that Trump was still the president of the country.
“I thought impeachment would instantly erase Trump from existence,” said Pane Wyndough, a Portland antifa organizer. “Apparently, that’s not how it works. Not only were the Founding Fathers racists, but they also planned the impeachment process specifically so that Trump would stay in office. They are complicit in his hate.”
“It was as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror,” said Bill Pachinski, a farmer in Iowa. “I woke up to get started on a day’s work. The rooster crowed. And then I heard a horrifying screeching sound creeping over the land, growing in volume. It started on the East Coast and slowly spread toward the West, with the loudest cries coming from New York and California.”
Go here to read the rest. I would have loved to have had a listening device in the inner office of Democrat Congress Critters in Trump Districts who dutifully walked the plank and voted for impeachment on December 18, only to find out on December 19 that Speaker of the House Pelosi was going to delay sending the articles of Impeachment to the Senate to try to coerce the Republican majority to ensure a “fair playing field” in the forthcoming trial.
A few observations:
- The Democrat representatives in Trump districts are desperate to put impeachment behind them as long before the election as possible. If the trial would be done today it would be none too soon for them, and Pelosi playing a useless delay game demonstrates yet again that their political fates are a matter of complete indifference to her.
- Some scholars, including one who testified on behalf of the Democrats during the Impeachment farce, think that if Pelosi delays too long in sending the Impeachment over to the Senate, the Impeachment is cancelled.
- I agree with scholars who contend that there is no need for the Impeachment to be formally tendered to the Senate, and after a successful impeachment in the House the Senate can have the trial whenever a majority pleases.
- The rules governing the trial are determined by majority vote in the Senate. The Chief Justice presides over the trial but he does not set the rules governing the trial. Any rulings that the Chief Justice makes during the trial can be immediately challenged and overruled by a majority of the Senate.
- After the partisan display put on by the House during the Impeachment process, any rules devised by the Senate for the trial that do not include the requirement of having the House managers of the Impeachment prosecution stripped naked, smeared with honey, and hunted through the Senate chamber by a pack of ravenous wolves, will be much fairer by comparison.
No one saw this delay by Pelosi coming; it surprised everyone. So, what is she up to? I don’t trust her and wonder what is really going on. Looking at Don’s observations, I don’t see how the Senate can conduct a “trial” by themselves without House impeachment managers presenting the House’s case and the President’s team giving rebuttal evidence. Everything I read says the Senators listen (with no debate in a passive posture) then vote. So, who would they listen to if the House doesn’t come over? On a separate matter, does anyone know about the “30 day legislative clock” which supposedly started when the vote ended within which time the House must send over their team to present the articles of impeachment or the House impeachment vote is voided? And, oh by the way, while this was happening, the $1.4 trillion spending bill to keep the government going moved through both the House AND the Senate yesterday and headed to the President. It included continued funding for Planned Parenthood and other Democrat projects. There is a massive shell game going on and both Democrats and Republicans Congressional “reps” are in on it. I put “reps” in quotes as I’m convinced they don’t represent their districts, just themselves. Disgusting and sad but leading to extra prayers for our country – looking for a few good leaders!! Going back a few days to the post about Christmas 1944 and the Battle of the Bulge, the commander of the 101st Airborne, wondered what was so merry about that Christmas. Different battle, different time, but now the same answer applies: it is “merry” because this is our fight, now, and we need to step up and pay the price with phone calls, emails, reaching out to family and friends, letters to the Editor, listening and learning and registering to vote, etc., etc. Then voting! Merry Christmas and God bless the USA!
I suspect the delay is about the State of the Union address next month.
“So, who would they listen to if the House doesn’t come over?”
The Sounds of Silence. If a party does not appear at a trial, the court will grant summary judgment to the other side, or dismiss a case with prejudice. The Senate has sole authority to set all rules pertaining to the trial by majority vote.
Don: Thanks – that makes sense. Another legal question: Commentators keep saying the Senate will NOT have a legal trial following the Federal Court rules of evidence, etc. because it would not be a legal proceeding; rather, it is a political proceeding. I’m confused. Is the Senate event a legal event or is it just a venue to render their political judgement? Is this just semantics or is there a real difference? Seems people are mixing terms up but I sense they can’t have things both ways (follow Federal rules of evidence vs. do whatever the Senate majority decides it wants to do). In my heart I like the idea of dismissing the case with prejudice but is that a reasonable option given the circumstances?
It is not a trial in the common legal sense. It is a trial completely conducted by the rules determined by the Senate. The Supreme Court, up to this point, has adopted a hand’s off policy in regard to impeachments, viewing them as strictly a matter for Congress.
Don: You seem handy so I’ll ask one more legal question: what is the difference between acquittal and exoneration? Over at the website for War Room – Impeachment, there is a robust discussion about what Trump should shoot for and they make a Senate acquittal sound fast and straight forward while exoneration would take longer but the terms are confusing…
Neither acquittal nor exoneration are part of the impeachment process. The Senate determines solely the issue of whether someone is removed from office which requires a 2/3 ‘s of the Senate vote.