fullspinzoo

Technically, the "impeachment articles" must be delivered for impeachment to be deemed valid. Andrew McCarthy, one of the smartest guys in DC, gives you his slant. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/12/trump-impeachment-if-impeachment-articles-are-not-delivered-did-impeachment-happen/
Another article ~ Trump Isn't Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen?

No

If Dems Lose The House
It Can Be Overturned And Expunged By Simple Majority

Don't Think Pelosi Is Holding The Articles
On The Ridiculous Hope
Of Winning 67 Sears In Senate Next Nov.

One Of Two Articles Has Been Tossed By The Supreme Court
And 'Abuse Of Power'
Isn't On The Constitutional List Of Impeachable Offences

You Can't Impeach Someone Because Your Candidate Lost
Or Because You Don't Like Them

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

If Pres. Trump Had Done Anything Impeachable
They Wouldn't Need Trump's Help In Finding It

PeterS

Impeachment is no different than being indicted. So are you indicted if you aren't yet tried? Everyone but a conservative would say yes...

Liberty Tree

One of the Democrats own "expert" constitutional witnesses says Trump is not impeached until the articles are delivered to the Senate.

fullspinzoo

Feldman said exactly that. Not "impeached" until the articles arrive and the Senate receives them. This is a serious matter and all Pelosi is doing is playing some silly game

Lonewolf

Why there all on brake no one. To deliver them to, besides new evedence might bring more charges llike treason.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

The Demoproggies have been on the peoples brake pedal for 3yrs.

amadjuster Loc: Texas Panhandle

You should be Empeechud.

fullspinzoo

Yeah, and Santa might show up this Christmas too. Why don't you take a long 'brake' and maybe by the time you come back all this Empeechment stuff will be over. At least your spelling is improving!!! LOL

bahmer

Amen and Amen

buddy42 Loc: Bonita Springs, Fl

There is a new program available that you need to check out. It is called Grammarly and it has a free and a premium version. I think it would help you tremendously. https://www.grammarly.com/

fullspinzoo

Nice of you to offer him some help. Next he needs to work on his pessimistic attitude....and get rid of the hatred.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Here's another view: If I'm reading right Jan. 3 is the deadline.

The Bearded Patriot
LATEST

TRENDING
HOME

CONTACT
Latest stories


Pelosi Faces Impeachment Deadline — Considers a New Tactic To Bring Down Trump
by Ronn Blitzer
37 minutes ago
6.8kViews

By Ronn Blitzer December 24th, 2019 | Image Source: CNN

The lawyer for House Judiciary Committee Democrats revealed in a Monday court filing that there is a possibility lawmakers could pursue even more articles of impeachment against President Trump — despite having already adopted two of them last week following a grueling, historic and bitterly partisan debate.

The prospect of additional articles — while perhaps unlikely — was floated as part of a court battle over Democrats’ bid to compel testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn.

Shortly before a 4 p.m. deadline imposed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the committee counsel filed a brief making their case for why they still want to hear from McGahn, despite having already voted for impeachment.

Democrats originally sought McGahn’s testimony in connection with his claims to then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team that Trump wanted him to have Mueller fired. Trump’s critics claimed this request constituted obstruction of justice.

While the Mueller probe never factored into the impeachment articles that were adopted, House Democrats’ counsel Douglas Letter argued that McGahn’s testimony is still vital — and could even be relevant to “consideration of whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment” against Trump.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” the brief stated, noting that they still have “ongoing impeachment investigations.”

The filing did not detail what potential additional articles could be considered, beyond the already-adopted articles alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.


Breaking: Anti-Aging Breakthrough Now Fully Legalized
Find Out More 44,319
Regardless, the brief stated that even if McGahn’s testimony does not lead to new articles of impeachment, it could be used in an upcoming Senate trial — which is on hold pending Speaker Nancy Pelosi transmitting the articles to the chamber — in relation to the obstruction of Congress allegations that Trump is currently facing.

The White House has asserted longstanding executive privilege to bar McGahn from supplying documents and testimony to House investigators back when they were probing the Russia issue, saying internal White House deliberations must remain protected. The case was later tied into impeachment as the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., refocused on that inquiry.

In an opposing court filing, the Justice Department claimed Monday that the McGahn case should be dismissed precisely because of its connection to the impeachment process.

“[T]he article of impeachment addressing purported obstruction of Congress relies in part on the judicial proceedings in this very case,” the DOJ said in a brief submitted earlier Monday morning.

“Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ argued, before concluding that the court “should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction.”

Alternatively, the DOJ argued that impeachment eliminates the committee’s need for expedited consideration. The committee had previously claimed that “speedy judicial action is needed to avoid hampering the House’s impeachment investigation,” but the DOJ says this “justification no longer applies,” so there is no need for anything to take place prior to the already scheduled Jan. 3 oral arguments.

The committee disagreed, citing the upcoming Senate trial and “ongoing impeachment investigations,” as well as the public’s “significant interest ‘in immediately removing a sitting president whose continuation in office poses a threat to the Nation’s welfare.’”

Both sides also faced late-afternoon deadlines in a separate case where the House Judiciary Committee is seeking the secret grand jury material from Mueller’s investigation. Such material is generally secret, according to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which specify certain exceptions including judicial proceedings.

In that case, DOJ lawyers told the court Monday that the House committee request for Mueller grand jury materials is no longer relevant, as the impeachment articles did not involve the Russia probe.

“Neither article of impeachment adopted by the House, however, alleges high crimes or misdemeanors stemming from the events described in the Mueller Report. Accordingly, nothing appears to remain of the Committee’s alleged need for the grand-jury materials in the Mueller Report,” their filing said.

In response, House Democrats claimed the grand jury material “bears on the current Articles of Impeachment and could accordingly be used in a Senate trial on those Articles, and because the Committee is continuing to conduct its inquiry into whether the President committed other impeachable offenses.”

Fox News’ Bill Mears and Gregg Re contributed to this report.

Author: Ronn Blitzer

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Not true, you're spinning, we believe that and that your innocent until proven guilty. Ds like to accuse people of being guilty and making them prove they are not. A mega-huge, difference. D's were in a big hurry just to sit on it? Maybe they just wanted to deny Trump the same rights that were afforded to Nixon and Clinton? That seems more credible.