My Working Theory on the Impeachment Covfefe

 

Since the House has “sole power” to impeach, they have the power to decide whether impeachment is just an accusation or is rather a process of accuse-and-send-to-trial. So Trump has been impeached because the House bill disambiguated impeachment by proclaiming that Trump “is impeached.”

As a corollary, since the Senate has “sole power” to do the trial, the House has no power to stop them once the President has been impeached. So the Senate does not have to wait for the House to deliver the accusation. They can start the trial of Trump whenever they feel like it.

Oh, the covfefe!

Your opinions? Objections? Concerns?

Update: See comments #s 27-32 below for more–possibly better–analysis!

Published in Law
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 82 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Or ignore the whole thing and wait to see what they do about it while the actual investigation proceeds.

    • #1
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Or ignore the whole thing and wait to see what they do about it while the actual investigation proceeds.

    Oh, yeah. As far as political strategy goes, that may be much better!

    I’m just intrigued by this new argument that the House Democrats cannot both impeach and prevent the Senate from trying.

    • #2
  3. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    I’m just intrigued by this new argument that the House Democrats cannot both impeach and prevent the Senate from trying.

    True. It’s definitely an either/or thing. He either is or is not impeached. If he is, it is for the Senate to move at their own leisurely pace.

    • #3
  4. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Arahant (View Comment):

    True. It’s definitely an either/or thing. He either is or is not impeached. If he is, it is for the Senate to move at their own leisurely pace.

    Or fast.  They can start the trial–or acquittal–of Trump this afternoon and quote the Constitution when Pelosi freaks out and the media joins her.

    Maybe not the best political strategy–as if I would know what was.

    But it would be a rich, dark cup of covfefe.

    • #4
  5. Chris B Member
    Chris B
    @ChrisB

    Or, the Senate could announce that they have heard that the House has passed articles of impeachment, but has not transmitted them to the Senate, as is proper. As this is just one of many irregularities, the Senate will now launch an investigation into whether members of the House are abusing their authority to conduct oversight in order to cause unlawful interference to the office of the President.

    They could also vote that articles of impeachment become void if not presented to the Senate within 30 days of being certified.

    • #5
  6. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    I think the Senate should take up the issue and deal with it by McConnell throwing the charges out as invalid.  If they don’t deal with it somehow, the Dems will resurrect the articles if they retake the Senate, much like they’re trying to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment.

    • #6
  7. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Stad (View Comment):

    I think the Senate should take up the issue and deal with it by McConnell throwing the charges out as invalid. If they don’t deal with it somehow, the Dems will resurrect the articles if they retake the Senate, much like they’re trying to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment.

    I think the Democrats are using the stall to enhance their chance of winning back the Senate. Yes they need 67 to convict but they only need 51 to write the rules. I think the Democrats are protecting only 15 seats whereas the Republicans 23. They would make a trial in the Senate another circus like the one in the House. Who knows what would go on. Mitch should have the trial as soon as possible with or without Nancy sending the bills.

    • #7
  8. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Impeachment isn’t going to matter much when we look back on it, during the 7th year of Trump’s second term.

     

    • #8
  9. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    I think the Senate should take up the issue and deal with it by McConnell throwing the charges out as invalid. If they don’t deal with it somehow, the Dems will resurrect the articles if they retake the Senate, much like they’re trying to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment.

    I think the Democrats are using the stall to enhance their chance of winning back the Senate. Yes they need 67 to convict but they only need 51 to write the rules. I think the Democrats are protecting only 15 seats whereas the Republicans 23. They would make a trial in the Senate another circus like the one in the House. Who knows what would go on. Mitch should have the trial as soon as possible with or without Nancy sending the bills.

    They may want a circus, but Cocaine Mitch is the ringmaster. He’s the one who will run the circus, and I don’t think that their desire to make Schumer the new Senate Majority Leader is in accordance with his plans.

    • #9
  10. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Is there a single American who must heed Nancy Pelosi’s whims other than members of the House of Representatives?

    • #10
  11. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Is there a single American who much heed Nancy Pelosi’s whims other than members of the House of Representatives?

    Her husband?

    • #11
  12. Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… Inactive
    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai…
    @Gaius

    The power of each house to decide its own rules probably points in that direction.

     

    • #12
  13. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Is there a single American who much heed Nancy Pelosi’s whims other than members of the House of Representatives?

    Her husband?

    Doesn’t work in my household.

    • #13
  14. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    Doesn’t work in my household.

    Or so you tell us. 😁

    • #14
  15. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Is there a single American who much heed Nancy Pelosi’s whims other than members of the House of Representatives?

    Her husband?

    Doesn’t work in my household.

    Brave man. Or foolish. It’s a fine line.

    • #15
  16. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey
    @DrewInWisconsin

    They wanted to put an asterisk by the President’s name. But now the asterisk needs its own asterisk.

    • #16
  17. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    They wanted to put an asterisk by the President’s name. But now the asterisk needs its own asterisk.

    I’m thinking Donald Trump might have a lot more than an asterisk or two before he’s done. Covfefe. 

    • #17
  18. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    They wanted to put an asterisk by the President’s name. But now the asterisk needs its own asterisk.

    I’m thinking Donald Trump might have a lot more than an asterisk or two before he’s done. Covfefe.

    Maybe a whole trophy case full of ’em…

    • #18
  19. PHCheese Inactive
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    Percival (View Comment):

    PHCheese (View Comment):

    Stad (View Comment):

    I think the Senate should take up the issue and deal with it by McConnell throwing the charges out as invalid. If they don’t deal with it somehow, the Dems will resurrect the articles if they retake the Senate, much like they’re trying to resurrect the Equal Rights Amendment.

    I think the Democrats are using the stall to enhance their chance of winning back the Senate. Yes they need 67 to convict but they only need 51 to write the rules. I think the Democrats are protecting only 15 seats whereas the Republicans 23. They would make a trial in the Senate another circus like the one in the House. Who knows what would go on. Mitch should have the trial as soon as possible with or without Nancy sending the bills.

    They may want a circus, but Cocaine Mitch is the ringmaster. He’s the one who will run the circus, and I don’t think that their desire to make Schumer the new Senate Majority Leader is in accordance with his plans.

    Mitch is in change now but I was referring to a circus after the election if the Democrats pick up enough seats for a majority. Chuck U would have the Schiff model of a trial and I could see it as never ending.  Cavanaugh hearings on steroids .  Phony  Wittiness after phony wittiness.

    • #19
  20. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    I’m honestly ignorant of the process of impeachment and the rules of what follows, so I hope this is true and they can get on with it. It is interesting that the “goal” of the progressive party seemed to be impeach before Christmas, like you can place a marker on something this serious and rare. Then to make it one of the most reverent weeks for Christians and Jews to boot is a disgrace – a dark cloud hovering over a holy week.    In fact, I picture Pig Pen, the Charlie Brown character – the Democrats are smiles because they invoked impeachment, but everywhere they go, there’s dust, dirt and debris in the air, but the Light of Truth shall prevail and burn through the dust that dims.

    • #20
  21. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I think that Nancy Pelosi is waiting for precisely the right moment to announce that this is not just impeachment — it’s double secret impeachment!

    • #21
  22. MeanDurphy Member
    MeanDurphy
    @DeanMurphy

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    They wanted to put an asterisk by the President’s name. But now the asterisk needs its own asterisk.

    “It’s asterisks all the way down.”

    • #22
  23. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    They wanted to put an asterisk by the President’s name. But now the asterisk needs its own asterisk.

    • #23
  24. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    philo (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey (View Comment):

    They wanted to put an asterisk by the President’s name. But now the asterisk needs its own asterisk.

    I’m thinking Donald Trump might have a lot more than an asterisk or two before he’s done. Covfefe.

    Maybe a whole trophy case full of ’em…

    Badges of honor to Trump.

    • #24
  25. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Miffed White Male on another thread:

    If delivery to the Senate was required for Trump to be impeached, then the Senate could prevent impeachment by refusing the accept the delivery. Which would be a violation of “the House has sole power of Impeachment”. Therefore, delivery to the Senate cannot logically be a requirement for impeachment to have occurred in the House.

    So the Senate can get started anytime they want.

    A very good argument.

    • #25
  26. DonG (skeptic) Coolidge
    DonG (skeptic)
    @DonG

    The Senate can call witnesses and have hearings any day they choose using oversight capability.  Trump can also declassify a lot of stuff.  Any delay is The Swamp flexing it muscle.

    • #26
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Note that my whole approach in the opening post depends on there being an ambiguity in the word “impeachment.”

    Give me a good argument against there even being an ambiguity, and I’m back to where I was a few days ago: thinking Trump has not even been impeached!

    • #27
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Enter @spin and his argument from analogy:

    Spin Owlsley on Facebook:

    If a prosecutor writes up all the paperwork to charge someone with a crime, but never files it with the court, has the person been charged? No. This is all theater.

    (Did I tag the right Spin?)

    • #28
  29. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    And then there’s @spin and his originalist argument.  The argument runs something like this:

    If the meaning of “impeachment” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution as supreme law requires a delivery to trial for impeachment to take place, then Trump has not been impeached.

    It does.

    So he hasn’t.

    The rest is just consulting some original sources and seeing how the word is used.  Here’s some of what Spin told me on Facebook:

    Spin:

    Hamilton offers some insight: “In several of the States, however, no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the chief magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office.”

    Focusing on the statement regarding Delaware and Virginia, it is clear that impeachment is something broader than simply a declaration by a governing body. Why else would any state provide for impeachment after someone leaves office?

    Spin:

    Another example is: ” One branch of the legislative department forms also a great constitutional council to the executive chief, as, on another hand, it is the sole depositary of judicial power in cases of impeachment, and is invested with the supreme appellate jurisdiction in all other cases. “

    In this example, it is clear that impeachment means something stronger than a mere statement. It considers the Senate to have “judicial power” over impeachment. Impeachment clearly has some legal meaning. It is not merely a political tool, to be used when the House is in sharp disagreement with the President.

    Again, I think this bolsters the case that impeach means “to bring charges against”, and that if the charges are merely written up, but not brought, then impeachment hasn’t occurred.

    Spin:

    Then again, Hamilton says in Federalist 57 the following:

    “What are we to say to the men who profess the most flaming zeal for republican government, yet boldly impeach the fundamental principle of it;”

    In this case, Hamilton is clearly using the word to mean simply to “call in to question” the integrity of a thing.

    Spin:

    But every instance of the word in the context of the actual powers enumerated to the House and Senate seem to indicate a judiciary power, which means to me that there has to be something more than just making a declaration. No trial, no impeachment.

    • #29
  30. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    (Did I tag the right Spin?)

    He’s the only Spin we Spin.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.