• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brilliant Idea from John Dean

HumblePi

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
26,305
Reaction score
18,830
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think John Dean's idea is masterful.

JohnDean.jpg
 
But Nancy says they are bound by the constitution to do it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
But Nancy says they are bound by the constitution to do it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's what John Dean is saying. Yes, impeach in the House but hold it right there, not sending it up to the Senate.
 
Oborosen said:
So yes, the decision is to just abuse power to get your way and keep it like that.
Click to expand...

That's right, that's exactly what Trump has been doing and that's going to be one of the articles of impeachment--abuse of power.
 
HumblePi said:
That's right, that's exactly what Trump has been doing and that's going to be one of the articles of impeachment--abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Good claim, are you any closer to actually proving that claim than before?

Because plenty of us are still waiting.
 
Not going to work.
Once an article of impeachment is passed, it goes to the Senate.
The House, I suppose, could choose to not show up.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Not going to work.
Once an article of impeachment is passed, it goes to the Senate.
The House, I suppose, could choose to not show up.
Click to expand...

If anyone knows how impeachment works, it's John Dean and if what he's saying, that impeachment can happen in the House without being obligated to forward it to the Senate for trial, then it's a fact.
 
HumblePi said:
If anyone knows how impeachment works, it's John Dean and if what he's saying, that impeachment can happen in the House without being obligated to forward it to the Senate for trial, then it's a fact.
Click to expand...

The Senate has sole power to try an impeachment.
Their rules require a start of the trial a day or so after the House votes to impeach.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The Senate has sole power to try an impeachment.
Their rules require a start of the trial a day or so after the House votes to impeach.
Click to expand...

Sure, Congress is the body that conducts an impeachment trial. But that doesn't mean the House is required to send it to them for trial.
 
HumblePi said:
Sure, Congress is the body that conducts an impeachment trial. But that doesn't mean the House is required to send it to them for trial.
Click to expand...

The purpose of an impeachment is for a trial for removal or not.
The Senate doesn't need to conduct its business on the House's schedule.
They can simply arrange the trial, call in the Chief Justice, and if the House chooses not to appear, vote on it as they wish.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The purpose of an impeachment is for a trial for removal or not.
The Senate doesn't need to conduct its business on the House's schedule.
They can simply arrange the trial, call in the Chief Justice, and if the House chooses not to appear, vote on it as they wish.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're making that up.
 
HumblePi said:
Nah, you're making that up.
Click to expand...

Why? Seriously? What makes you think the Senate has to sit around and wait for the House once the House has passed articles of impeachment?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Why? Seriously? What makes you think the Senate has to sit around and wait for the House once the House has passed articles of impeachment?
Click to expand...

What if they didn't pass it but just kept adding articles.

Do they have to vote before the allegations are complete?
 
Who knows how it would work. Here's Wikipedia on the process:

If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution or district attorney in a standard criminal trial. Also, the House will adopt a resolution in order to notify the Senate of its action. After receiving the notice, the Senate will adopt an order notifying the House that it is ready to receive the managers. The House managers then appear before the bar of the Senate and exhibit the articles of impeachment. After the reading of the charges, the managers return and make a verbal report to the House.
Click to expand...

So, presumably, the House would vote to impeach, and then not pass the resolution to notify the Senate it had. Who knows if, at that point, the Senate would be unable to act, or if on its own it could just decide to hold a trial, without the House participating, and vote to not remove the president.
 
HumblePi said:
That's what John Dean is saying. Yes, impeach in the House but hold it right there, not sending it up to the Senate.
Click to expand...

Nice try but it doesn't work that way. John Dean might be one of the worst assholes in US Political history, BTW.
 
beefheart said:
Its no different than the BS they pulled on Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...

which was not worse than what the MINORITY Dems did by preventing Miguel Estrada and Peter Keisler from getting a vote for their court of appeals nominations. It is doubtful Garland had the votes to be seated. Estrada and Keisler did.
 
Craig234 said:
Who knows how it would work. Here's Wikipedia on the process:



So, presumably, the House would vote to impeach, and then not pass the resolution to notify the Senate it had. Who knows if, at that point, the Senate would be unable to act, or if on its own it could just decide to hold a trial, without the House participating, and vote to not remove the president.
Click to expand...

I found this at a .gov site...

Following the adoption of a resolution to impeach, the House appoints managers to conduct the impeachment trial in the Senate. The Senate is then informed of these facts by resolution. Manual Sec. 607; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 9. When this resolution reaches the Senate, the Senate advises the House as to when the Senate will receive the managers appointed by the House. The managers then present themselves and the impeachment articles to the Senate, the House reserving the right to file additional articles later. Manual Sec. 608a; Deschler Ch 14 Sec. Sec. 10, 11.

House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House; Chapter 27. Impeachment
Click to expand...

This makes it sound like two distinct actions. First an impeachment vote. Second informing the Senate by resolution.
 
HumblePi said:
That's what John Dean is saying. Yes, impeach in the House but hold it right there, not sending it up to the Senate.
Click to expand...
Im not a constitutional scholar so im not even sure if thats possible but assuming that it is, do you not see the political problem to impeach him and not send it to the senate for a vote?

On one hand she has claimed she does not want to impeach him but its their Constitutional duty and they have to do it because of the seriousness of the nature of his crimes, then they are gonna not send it to the Senate based on the reasoning that its better to keep the process in a perpetual state of never ending investigations.

Do you really think that idea will sell with swing voters? I submit to you that it will make your party look like a bunch of cowards that are afraid to allow Trump to respond to what they he is being accused of. It will make the accusations themselves look like they are too fragile to stand up to scrutiny.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Who knows how it would work. Here's Wikipedia on the process:



So, presumably, the House would vote to impeach, and then not pass the resolution to notify the Senate it had. Who knows if, at that point, the Senate would be unable to act, or if on its own it could just decide to hold a trial, without the House participating, and vote to not remove the president.
Click to expand...
What would be the point for the senate to hold a trial for a case that the house is too cowardly to send them?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I have already talked about this in my own thread. The House votes to impeach and sends the articles thus fulfilling the full duties of the constitution. Trump is thus impeached. Now the Senate rules require House managers to play prosecutors and Trump's personal attorneys to defend him and those rules anticipate the selected managers presence and cooperation in this adversarial trial. The Senate rules have no provision for how to hold a trial if the House does not appoint any managers as prosecutors and send their 'team' to court. They cannot force anyone in either body to prosecute President Trump. Now the Senate must acquit or convict after a trial per the constititon, and it cannot either acquit or convict him if there is no trial, so the Senate must declare the impeachment trial , a mistrial. Trump is left in a sort of constitutional state of limbo without this sham trial with his allies pretending to be objective jurors and engaging in blatant jury nullification.

The House has made it's case for removal in the public record and House floor speeches without actually participating in removing him in the Senate. We we all move on to the 2020 elections, talking instead about voter issues and the voters get to make the final call themselves after all.

Of course there are obvious problems with my plan,

1. the first of which is the inconsistency of saying he needs to be removed, and then not taking the final step to remove.
2. the House members will all have votes to defend while no senators will have a vote to defend.
3. they may have to change House rules that provide a procedure to select House managers and tell them what their role is.

But it does provide for cover against the accusation that they either just want to investigate him to political death by stretching this out, or they were trying to annul an election and remove him before 2020 , if they don't actually stretch it, or show up to try to annul the election and get him removed before 2020.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom